Ex Parte Nirmal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

13611514 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/611,514 09/12/2012
32692 7590 07/05/2016
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Manoj Nirmal
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.
65886US007 6878
EXAMINER
KIANNI, KA VEH C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANOJ NIRMAL, GREGORY G. JAGER,
AND MICHAEL F. WEBER
Appeal2014-010003
Application 13/611,514
Technology Center 2800
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates "generally to display systems, with
particular application to reflective display systems in which the display is
illuminated from the front." Spec., p. 1, 11. 11-13.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A display system, comprising:
a display panel having a front surface and a back
surface, the display panel further including electronically
Appeal2014-010003
Application 13/611,514
addressable reflective pixels, each pixel comprising a first,
second, and third subpixel of different first, second, and
third colors, respectively, the subpixels being separately
electronically addressable; and
a light source configured to illuminate the front
surface of the display panel with broadband source light
that includes light components of the first, second, and
third colors, such that the broadband source light is
selectively reflected by the pixels to provide a color image
to an observer disposed in front of the display panel;
wherein the light source comprises a first lamp that
emits a first broadband lamp light, the first broadband
lamp light including light components of the first, second,
and third colors;
wherein a combination of the first broadband lamp
light and the display panel provide a first color gamut
associated with reflection of the first broadband lamp light
selectively from the first subpixel, and with reflection of
the first broadband lamp light selectively from the second
subpixel, and with reflection of the first broadband lamp
light selectively from the third subpixel;
wherein a combination of the broadband source
light and the display panel provide a second color gamut
associated with reflection of the broadband source light
selectively from the first subpixel, and with reflection of
the broadband source light selectively from the second
subpixel, and with reflection of the broadband source light
selectively from the third subpixel; and
wherein the light source includes a first enhancing
element such that the second color gamut has an area
greater than that of the first color gamut.
2
Appeal2014-010003
Application 13/611,514
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Floyd (US 2006/0066557 Al; Mar. 30, 2006) and Ito
(US 6,910, 777 B2; June 28, 2005). Final Act. 5-8. 1
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Floyd, Ito, and Swanson et al. (US 2001/0048493 Al;
Dec. 6, 2001 ). Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON FLOYD AND ITO
Claims 1-3 and 5-19
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-19 as unpatentable over Floyd and Ito.
Appellants contend that Floyd fails to teach "a light source configured
to illuminate the front surface of the display panel with broadband source
light that includes light components of the first, second, and third colors."
More specifically, Appellants assert that Floyd lacks a broadband source
light because Floyd illuminates the surface of the display panel sequentially
with different colored light. App. Br 5; see also Reply Br. ("Since only one
color of light reaches Floyd's display at a time, Floyd's light source does not
illuminate the display with broadband source light, as claimed.").
We disagree. As the Examiner explains, Floyd expressly discloses
using a light source with a broadband spectrum of light. Ans. 4 (citing
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed Dec.
13, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed May 13, 2014 ("App.
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed July 31, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) the
Reply Brief filed Sept. 14, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2014-010003
Application 13/611,514
Floyd i-fi-1 49, 52). In Floyd, the light components, namely, red, green, and
blue are alternatively flashed faster than the capacity to be viewed
individually. Floyd i156; Ans. 3--4. Although Appellants assert that each
light component must illuminate the front surface of the display at the same
time (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 5), this limitation is notably absent from the
claim. As such, we find Appellants' arguments with respect to Floyd
unpersuasive. Moreover, the Examiner additionally finds that Ito teaches
illuminating the front surface of the display with a broadband light source.
Ans. 4. Appellants fail to persuasively respond to these findings.
Appellants' argument that Floyd teaches away from illuminating the
front panel with a broadband light source is likewise unavailing. As
discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Floyd teaches this
disputed limitation. Appellants also do not identify any teaching of Floyd
that discourages or discredits a broadband light source. See DePuy Spine,
Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2009) ("A reference does not teach away ... if it merely expresses a general
preference for an alternative invention .... ").
Appellants contend that Floyd fails to teach subpixels that are
separately electrically addressable. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants,
"[ w ]hile the interferometric light modulators are switchable, there is no
teaching or suggestion that the interferometric light modulators are
separately electronically addressable." App. Br. 6.
We disagree. Floyd expressly describes that pixel elements, and thus
the corresponding interferometric light modulators, are independently
addressable. Ans. 4 (quoting Floyd i1 55). A skilled artisan would then
understand that Floyd teaches subpixels, representing each of a first, second,
and third color for the pixel, that are separately electronically addressable.
4
Appeal2014-010003
Application 13/611,514
For example, we note that a broad, but reasonable interpretation of "a
subpixel is one of three components of a pixel used in the representation of a
color image. Each subpixel represents the contribution of a single color-
red, green, or blue-to the overall color and brightness of the pixel." The
American Heritage Science Dictionary, available
at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pixel (last visited June 28, 2016).
Floyd's subpixels, then, correspond to the independently addressable
interferometric light modulator of the pixel when each color is flashed. In
other words, the same pixel area acts as a red, green, or blue subpixel when
the corresponding color is illuminating it and each subpixel is independently
addressable to depict the desired color. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Floyd teaches this limitation.
With respect to claim 3, Appellants contend that Floyd lacks any
teaching of subpixels that are coextensive of the pixels. App. Br. 7. For the
same reasons as discussed above, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Namely, Floyd teaches that the pixels, for example shown in figure 9, each
depict the first, second, and third color and therefore the subpixels depicting
each color are the same size as the pixel. In other words, the subpixel is
coextensive with the pixel. As such, we find Appellants' argument
unpersuasive.
With respect to claims 12 and 17, Appellants assert that Floyd does
not teach the recited enhancing element comprising one or more light-
emitting diodes. Instead, according to Appellants, Floyd's LEDs may be
used as the light source but not as enhancing elements. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 7. Appellants maintain that "Floyd's enhancing element is
understood to be one or more filters." App. Br. 7. Floyd, however, at least
teaches using LEDs, i.e. more than one LED. Ans. 6 (citing Floyd i-f 57).
5
Appeal2014-010003
Application 13/611,514
Appellants do not provide any persuasive explanation as to why Floyd's
additional light source, an additional LED, cannot satisfy the recited
limitation. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Floyd at least suggests
the recited enhancing element. See Ans. 5.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claims 1-3 and 5-19 are unpatentable over the combination of Floyd and Ito.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON FLOYD, ITO, AND SWANSON
Claim 4
We similarly find Appellants' argument with respect to claim 4
unavailing. Specifically, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred by
replacing Floyd's interferometric light modulators with liquid crystal
because it would change the principle operation of the device. App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 7. The Examiner responds that
[A ]ppellant does not specify how or why the principle operation
of Floyd's display would be changed by such modification.
Additionally, ChLCD is a conventional type of liquid crystal
used in various displays and Floyd's display which is imaging
display having spatial light modulation system which is a surface
reflective imaging display is compatible with transmissive liquid
crystal device modulators which modulate light by controlling
the twist and/or alignment of crystalline materials to block or
pass light. Reflective spatial light modulators exploit various
physical effects to control the amount of light reflected to the
imaging surface. Examples of such reflective modulators include
reflective LCDs, and digital micromirror devices (DMD.TM.).
(see Floyd para. 0004).
Ans. 5---6. We are not persuaded of error in this determination.
We note that "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
6
Appeal2014-010003
Application 13/611,514
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review."); In re Nievelt, 482 F .2d 965, 968 (CCP A 1973) ("Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures.").
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claim 4 is unpatentable over the combination of Floyd, Ito, and Swanson.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7