Ex Parte Nakagawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

12802198 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/802, 198 06/01/2010 Makoto Nakagawa
22850 7590 11/02/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
471886US8SH 2656
EXAMINER
SHEN,YUZHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAKOTO NAKAGAWA, TSUYOSHI KAMADA,
and YUJI NAKAHATA 1
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802,198
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, and 20-22. Claims 2, 4--7, 13, 14, 23, and 24 are
cancelled. Claims 8-12 and 15-19 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Saturn Licensing LLC.
See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
Invention
Embodiments of the disclosed and claimed invention on appeal relate
generally to "an image display system using shutter eyeglasses, and an
image display device suitably used in the image display system." Spec. ,r 2.
Illustrative Claim
1. A display device, comprising:
a backlight;
a display panel, having a display screen, configured to
generate images by modulating light supplied from the
backlight for display on the display screen; and
a backlight controller configured to variably control at
least one of timing or duty of the backlight,
wherein the display panel is configured to present a
sequence of images including one or more left-hand side
images and one or more right-hand side images, and
wherein the backlight controller is configured to:
variably control at least one of timing or duty of
the backlight by switching the backlight between a tum-
ON period and a tum-OFF period and controlling the
timing of the switching by
determining a position on the display screen
having a maximum amount of parallax,
determining whether the position on the
display screen having the maximum amount of
parallax is closer to a scanning start position or is
closer to a scanning end position,
adjusting the timing of the switching to
become earlier when the position on the display
screen having the maximum amount of parallax is
closer to the scanning start position, and
adjusting the timing of the switching to
become later when the position having the
2
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
maximum amount of parallax is closer to the
scanning end position.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix) (Contested limitations emphasized.)
Rejections
A. Claims 1, 3, 21, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Jung
et al. (US 2007/0229951 Al; Oct. 4, 2007), in view of Pastoor
(S. Pastoor, Human Factors of 3D Imaging: Results of Recent
Research at Helnrich-Hertz-Jnstitut Berlin, 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND INT'L DISPLAY WORKSHOPS (1995) ("Pastoor")).
B. Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Goris et al.
(US 2010/0289883 Al; Nov. 18, 2010- corresponding to
WO 2009/069026 A2; June 4, 2009) (hereinafter "Goris '883")), and
Kimpe (US 2009/0141121 Al; June 4, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports particular arguments advanced by Appellants with respect
to claims 1, 3, and 20-22, for the specific reasons discussed below. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding the
independent claims for emphasis as follows.
Rejection A of Claims 1 and 21 under§ 103(a)
Regarding the contested claim 1 limitation ( emphasis added):
determining whether the position on the display screen
having the maximum amount of parallax is closer to a scanning
start position or is closer to a scanning end position,
3
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
the Examiner finds the aforementioned "determining" limitation is taught or
suggested by Jung's Table 1 (shown below paragraph 42), Figures lOA
and lOB, and paragraphs 42--44, in combination with Pastoor (which teaches
parallax, p. 70, col. 2, Fig. 5).
Regarding the two contested "adjusting" limitations of claim 1
( emphasis added):
adjusting the timing of the switching to become earlier
when the position on the display screen having the maximum
amount of parallax is closer to the scanning start position, and
adjusting the timing of the switching to become later
when the position having the maximum amount of parallax is
closer to the scanning end position,
the Examiner finds these "adjusting" limitations are taught or suggested by
Jung's Figures 9-11, which:
show examples of timing control of switching the backlight to
minimize the crosstalk, when the maximum amount of crosstalk
corresponds to the position t=20, which is closer to the scanning
end position t=30 than to the scanning start position t=O
(referring to timing of switching signal as shown in Figs. 1 OA
and 1 lA), in this case, the timing of the switching signal is
adjusted to be later and cross-talk is minimized; [0042]-[0044]
including table 1 ).
Final Act. 4--5 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner looks to the secondary Pastoor reference for teaching
the claimed parallax. The Examiner finds:
Jung does not disclose parallax as claimed. However, in a
three-dimensional display device, cross-talk is correlated with
parallax. For example, Pastoor (Fig. 5) discloses in three
dimensional displays, crosstalk increases with parallax, and a
larger amount of crosstalk corresponds to a larger amount of
parallax (Fig. 5 and col. 2, paragraph 2 on page 70).
Final Act. 5 ( emphasis added).
4
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
We note Pastoor expressly describes: "As shown [i]n Fig. 5, visibility
of cross talk increases (i.e., the threshold value is lowered) with increasing
contrast and increasing binocular parallax (depth) of the stereoscopic
Image." Pastoor 70 (right column, middle paragraph including Fig. 5)
( emphasis added).
Regarding the contested "determining whether the position on the
display screen having the maximum amount of parallax is closer to a
scanning start position or is closer to a scanning end position" and the two
subsequent "adjusting" limitations of independent claim 1 ( emphasized in
italics above), Appellants contend:
The Office Action asserts that Table 1 and Figures 1 OA-
1 OB, which show the simulation results captured in Table 1 of
Jung correspond to the claimed feature of determining a
position on the display having a maximum amount of cross-
talk. Next, the Office Action asserts that Jung describes
determining whether the position having the maximum amount
of cross-talk is closer to a scanning end position or the scanning
start position by virtue of showing, in Table 1 and Figures lOA-
1 OB, that different scanning positions have different amounts of
cross-talk, with the maximum of 51 % corresponding to a
scanning position of t=20 (i.e., the fifth segment).
However, Appellants traverse these positions in the
Office Action because Jung does not describe determining
whether the position having the maximum cross-talk is closer to
the scanning start position or the scanning end position and
adjusting the timing of the switching based on the
determination.
While the simulation results shown in Table 1 and
Figures 1 OA-1 OB would necessarily have a position having a
maximum amount of cross-talk, nothing in Jung describes
determining where that position lies, much less determining
whether this position is closer to the scanning end position or
the scanning start position.
5
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
Furthermore, Appellants traverse the assertion, on page 4
of the Office Action that "the maximum amount of cross-talk
(i.e., 51 % for 75Hz) corresponds to a scanning position t=20."
The cross-talk percentages of Table 1 of Jung, including 51 %
for a delay of -0.8*S, show the overall cross-talk corresponding
to a delay time, and do not correspond to a particular screen
position.
App. Br. 8.
The Examiner disagrees, and further explains the basis for the
rejection in the Answer:
The difference between Jung and the claimed invention is that
Jung teaches how to control cross-talk but does not teach
parallax. However, it is well known in the art that parallax and
crosstalk are correlated to each other in three-dimensional
images. The examiner further cites Pastoor as a reference.
Pastoor (Fig. 5) teaches the relationship between parallax and
crosstalk in three dimensional displays, wherein crosstalk
increases with parallax, and a larger amount of crosstalk
corresponds to a larger amount of parallax (Fig. 5 and col. 2,
paragraph 2 on page 70). Since the display device as claimed
has only one maximum parallax, the one maximum parallax
cannot satisfy the conditions to be closer to both the scanning
start position and the scanning end position. The combination
of Jung and Pastoor discloses, when the maximum amount of
parallax is closer to the scanning end position, the timing of
switching the scanning backlight is adjusted to be later. In
sum, the combination of Jung and Pastoor not only discloses
each and every element as set forth in claims 1 and 21 but also
teaches the function as claimed. For the above reasons, it is
believed that the rejections should be sustained.
Ans. 16-17 (emphasis added).
However, based upon our review of the record, we find a
preponderance of the evidence supports at least the following arguments by
Appellants:
6
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
While the simulation results shown in [Jung's] Table 1
and Figures 1 OA-1 OB would necessarily have a position having
a maximum amount of cross-talk, nothing in Jung describes
determining where that position lies, much less determining
whether this position is closer to the scanning end position or
the scanning start position.
Furthermore, Appellants traverse the assertion, on page 4
of the Office Action that "the maximum amount of cross-talk
(i.e., 51 % for 75Hz) corresponds to a scanning position t=20."
The cross-talk percentages of Table 1 of Jung [ shown below
paragraph 42], including 51 % for a delay of -0.8*S, show the
overall cross-talk corresponding to a delay time, and do not
correspond to a particular screen position.
App. Br. 8 ( emphasis added).
We note paragraph 42 of Jung and Table 1 expressly disclose the
minimum and maximum cross-talk is a function of the delay time: "As
illustrated in Table 1, cross-talk is minimum when the value of the time D is
0.8*S ms regardless of a refresh rate (FR) of an LCD ... However, when the
value of the time D is excessively increased, the amount of cross-talk
increases again."
Even given that parallax is also correlated with cross-talk, as pointed
out by the Examiner (Final Act. 5; Ans. 16), and as taught by Pastoor (p. 70,
Fig. 5), we find nothing in Jung (or Jung as modified by Pastoor) that
teaches or suggests: "determining whether the position on the display screen
having the maximum amount of parallax is closer to a scanning start
position or is closer to a scanning end position," as recited in independent
claim 1 ( emphasis added), and recited using identical language in
independent claim 21.
For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Briefs
(App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3), we find the Examiner has not fully developed
7
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
the record to show that the cited portions of Jung and Pastoor teach or
suggest, alone or in combination, at least the aforementioned contested
"determining" limitation, as required by the contested language of
independent claim 1, and independent claim 21, which recites the contested
dispositive limitation of claim 1 using identical language. ( emphasis added).
We do not find a clear mapping of this contested limitation by the
Examiner. 2 Therefore, on this record, we conclude the contested dispositive
"determining" limitation is not rendered obvious by the Examiner's citations
to Jung and Pastoor, without more. See Final Act. 2-5.
Because Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred, we reverse
Rejection A under§ 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 21. For the same
reasons, we also reverse Rejection A of associated respective dependent
claims 3 and 22, which each depend directly from claim 1.
Rejection B of Independent Claim 20 under§ 103 (a)
Appellants contest the following limitation of independent claim 20
( emphasis added):
displaying a calibration image including a right-eye image and
a left-eye image, and controlling the timing of the switching
during display of the calibration image according to a user
selection among predetermined timing or duty settings.
Regarding the first portion of the contested limitation of claim 20
("displaying a calibration image including a right-eye image and a left-eye
2 See 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) ("When a reference is complex or shows or
describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular
part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of
each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected
claim specified.").
8
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
image"), the Examiner concludes that "[ t ]he claim limitation 'calibration'
has no patentable weight." Final Act. 11.
The Examiner further cites to Kimpe: "Kimpe (Fig. 2) discloses
displaying a calibration image including a right-eye image and a left-eye
image ([0060]; a right-eye image and a left-eye image forms a calibration
image)." Final Act. 11 ( emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds an artisan
would have been motivated to modify Goris '883 with the teachings of
Kimpe "to incorporate the calibration as taught by Kimpe to [a] 3D display
device as taught by Jung for image calibration." Final Act. 11.
The Examiner finds the latter "controlling [ of] the timing of the
switching" portion of the contested limitation of claim 20 is taught or
suggested by Goris '883 at paragraph 61, which the Examiner finds:
teaches the duty ofbacklight is predefined and adjustable;
[0044] teaches an example that the duty of backlight is set to be
longer than the vertical blanking interval; Fig. 2 and [0049]-
[0054] teach the timing of switching backlight is variably
controlled, e.g., the time to tum on backlight can be set at tl 1 or
tOl ').
Final Act. 11 ( emphasis omitted).
However, Appellants contend:
[N]othing in Goris describes adjusting the timing of the
backlight according to a user selection while the left-eye
image and the right-eye image are displayed. While Goris
describes that the backlight timing is adjustable, nothing in
Goris describes that a user adjusts the backlight timing at all,
much less while images are displayed. In fact, Goris does not
include any details as to when or how the backlight timing
would be adjusted.
Kimpe does not cure these deficiencies in Goris, as
Kimpe is merely relied upon to show a calibration image
including a right-eye image and a left-eye image.
9
Appeal 2017-011368
Application 12/802, 198
App. Br. 11.
Based upon our review of the evidence, and for essentially the same
reasons argued by Appellants in the Briefs, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show that the cited
portions of Goris '883 and Kimpe teach or suggest "displaying a calibration
image including a right-eye image and a left-eye image, and controlling the
timing of the switching during display of the calibration image according to
a user selection among predetermined timing or duty settings," within the
meaning of independent claim 20 ( emphasis added).
In particular, we find the cited portions of both the Goris '883 and
Kimpe references are silent regarding at least "controlling the timing of the
switching during display of the calibration image according to a user
selection" ( emphasis added). Therefore, we find no "user selection" as
expressly claimed. App. Br. 17 (Claim 20).
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse Rejection B
of independent claim 20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, and 20-22, as being
obvious over the cited combination of references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 20-22.
REVERSED
10