Ex Parte Silverstein

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

13351518 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/351,518 01/17/2012 Barry David Silverstein
23370 7590 09/25/2018
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 PEACHTREE STREET
SUITE 2800
ATLANTA, GA 30309
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
I0002-949408 2489
EXAMINER
CHANG, AUDREY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY DAVID SILVERSTEIN
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/351,518 1
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL,
and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IMAX Theatres
International Limited. Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4) filed June 30, 2017.
2 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed January
17, 2012, the Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated December 1, 2016, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) dated August 14, 2017, and Appellant's Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed October 16, 2017.
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/3 51,518
The subject matter on appeal relates to filter glasses for use by an
observer of a stereoscopic digital display system and methods using filter
glasses (see, e.g., claims 1 and 19). Specifically, the claimed inventions
relate to filter glasses that reduce unwanted flare when used with
stereoscopic digital projection systems. Spec. 1:21-23. According to the
Inventor, a characteristic of dichroic filters used with such glasses is that
light not transmitted through the filters is reflected back and scattered about
a viewing environment. Id. 31:24--27, 32: 1-9. For instance, the reflected
light may be directed back toward a display screen, which can increase
the amount of visual noise and reduce image contrast. Id. 32:9-13. The
reflected light may also be directed forward so it is incident upon the rear
surface of a filter used by another person. Id. 32: 14--20. To address this
issue, the Inventor discloses filter glasses that dispose right-eye and left-eye
filters at a tilt relative to the vertical direction so reflected light is directed
upwards and away from a display and from other viewers seated ahead of a
wearer of the glasses. Id. 39: 17-27.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. Filter glasses for use by an observer of a
stereoscopic digital display system that displays stereoscopic
images including first-eye images and second-eye images on a
display surface, the filter glasses comprising:
a first-eye filter having a front surface positioned for
facing the display surface and an opposite back surface and
having transmission characteristics to substantially transmit
light from the first-eye images and block light from the second-
eye images;
a second-eye filter having a front surface positioned for
facing the display surface and an opposite back surface and
having transmission characteristics to substantially transmit
2
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/3 51,518
light from the second-eye images and block light from the first-
eye images; and
frame having arms and rims, the arms extending along a
horizontal axis from the rims, the frame being adapted to
position the first-eye filter in front of the observer's first eye and
to position the second-eye filter in front of the observer's
second eye, the rims holding the first-eye filter and the second-
eye filter at a tilt angle relative to a vertical axis such that top
edges of the first-eye filter and the second-eye filter are closer
than bottom edges of the first-eye filter and the second-eye filter
to a vertical plane that intersects ends of the arms that is
opposite to the rims to direct, upwards relative to the horizontal
axis, light from the display surface that is reflected from the
first-eye filter and the second-eye filter and over a head of
another observer seated in front of, and at a same level as, the
observer,
wherein the tilt angle is an amount that is based on a
position of a seating area in a theatre relative to the position of
the display swface in the theatre.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Ramstad3 in view of Rogers4
and Miyawaki; 5
II. Claims 2--4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ramstad, Rogers, and Miyawaki and
further in view of Reder; 6
3 Ramstad, US 2011/0063 726 A 1, published Mar. 17, 2011 ("Ramstad").
4 Rogers, US 3,060,804, issued Oct. 30, 1962 ("Rogers").
5 Miyawaki et al., US 8,907,865 B2, issued Dec. 9, 2014 ("Miyawaki").
6 Reder, US 2008/0151193 Al, published June 26, 2008 ("Reder").
3
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/3 51,518
III. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ramstad, Rogers, and Miyawaki and
further in view of Pleune; 7
IV. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Ramstad, Rogers, and Miyawaki and further in view
of Rosemond; 8 and
V. Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ramstad in view of Khassanov9 and
Rogers.
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Ramstad in view of Rogers and Miyawaki.
The Examiner finds Ramstad discloses, among other things, filter
glasses for use with a stereoscopic display system, the filter glasses
including a first-eye filter, a second-eye filter, and a frame. Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner finds Ramstad's frame does not hold the filters at a tilt angle,
as recited in claim 1. Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds Rogers discloses eyeglasses with lens frames that
can be configured to hold lenses at a tilt angle relative to a vertical axis, such
that the top edges of the lenses are closer than bottom lens edges to a vertical
plane, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner concludes it would
7 Pleune et al., US 5,532,767, issued July 2, 1996 ("Pleune").
8 Rosemond et al., US 3,104,290, issued Sept. 17, 1963 ("Rosemond").
9 Khassanov et al., US 2012/0038758 Al, published Feb. 16, 2012
("Khassanov").
4
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/3 51,518
have been obvious to modify Ramstad in view of Rogers so Ramstad's
filters are tilted to provide the benefit of accommodating a viewer's
particular viewing conditions. Id. at 5. With regard to the claim language
"wherein the tilt angle is an amount that is based on a position of a seating
area in a theatre relative to the position of the display surface in the theatre,"
the Examiner finds Miyawaki discloses eyeglasses with a viewing device
that is tilted at an angle based on the position and location of a target ( e.g., a
theater display screen). Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to apply the teachings of Rogers and Miyawaki to adjust the tilt
angle of eyeglasses so image light from a display surface can be properly
viewed and so a best viewing condition is achieved. Id. at 5---6.
Appellant contends Miyawaki does not disclose that filters of
eyeglasses can be tilted at an angle based on the position and location of a
target, such as a display system, and therefore the combination of Ramstad,
Rogers, and Miyawaki does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 1---6. Appellant further argues there would
have been no reason to combine Ramstad, Rogers, and Miyawaki because
there is no evidentiary support or supportable rationale, especially in view of
the technical differences between the applied references. Appeal Br. 12-14;
Reply Br. 5-7. In view of this, Appellant asserts the Examiner has relied
upon impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 14--15.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Ramstad discloses
stereoscopic glasses including filters for each eye and a frame. Ramstad
,r,r 4, 51, 53. As the Examiner correctly finds, Ramstad does not disclose or
suggest the filter tilt recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/3 51,518
Rogers discloses eyeglass frames that are adjustable to permit the
proper angular relationship for comfort and proper use by a wearer and to
accommodate the particular shape and configuration of a user's head.
Rogers 1 :7-9, 20-32, 2:21-25. According to Rogers, this arrangement
"permits each and every pair of eyeglasses to be adjusted exactly to the
proper angle required for the individual user to which they are fitted without
any danger or damage to the eyeglasses themselves." Id. 3:47---61.
Thus, Rogers demonstrates it was known to adjust eyeglasses so the
lenses ( or filters, in the case of Ramstad' s glasses) are tilted. As indicated
by the Examiner's explanation at pages 11 and 14 of the Examiner's
Answer, although Rogers is not directed to stereoscopic glasses with filters,
the benefits disclosed by Rogers (i.e., being able to adjust eyeglasses to
permit the proper angular relationship required for a user to achieve
comfort and proper use by a user without damage to the eyeglasses) would
be applicable to other types of glasses, such as Ramstad's stereoscopic
glasses that are worn by a user. As a result, Rogers provides a reason to
modify Ramstad to use the adjustable frames disclosed by Rogers.
Moreover, the combination of Ramstad and Rogers meets the tilt
recitations of claim 1. As shown in Figure 4, Rogers discloses that the frame
may be adjusted so that the top edges of lenses are closer than bottom edges
of the lenses to a vertical plane intersecting ends of the temple bars 21 of the
frame. Rogers discloses the frames may be adjusted to form a 95° angle
between the frame front and the temple bars, corresponding to a 5° upward
tilt relative to vertical. Id. 2:25-33, Fig. 4. The Inventor discloses a
preferred tilt angle of about 5-20° relative to a vertical plane for typical
viewing environments. Spec. 39:28-29.
6
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/3 51,518
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that a preponderance of
evidence supports the Examiner's obviousness determination based on the
combined teachings of Ramstad and Rogers. Appellant's arguments
regarding Miyawaki, therefore, are moot.
Appellant does not argue claims 9, 10, 12-16, and 18 separately from
claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-15.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 9, 10, 12-
16, and 18.
Re} ections II-IV
For the rejections of claims 2-8, 11, and 17, Appellant asserts the
claims depend from and further limit claim 1 and the additional cited
references do not cure the deficiencies discussed above with regard to the
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Id. at 20-21. For the reasons discussed above
with regard to the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, there are no deficiencies in
the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by the additional cited references.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of
claims 2-8, 11, and 17.
Rejection V
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ramstad in view of Khassanov and Rogers.
In the rejection of claim 19, the Examiner finds Ramstad discloses
filter glasses for use with a stereoscopic display system having a first-eye
filter that transmits light with information about first-eye images from a
7
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/3 51,518
display surface but blocks light with information about second-eye images
and has a second-eye filter that transmits the second-eye light but blocks the
first-eye light. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner finds Khassanov discloses
the use of filter glasses with a theater display system to observe a 3D or
stereoscopic image and concludes it would have been obvious to modify
Ramstad in view of Khassanov so Ramstad's filter glasses are used in a
theater to view a stereoscopic movie. Id. at 11.
The Examiner finds Ramstad does not disclose its filters are tilted but
finds Rogers discloses eyeglasses with lens frames that can be configured to
hold lenses at a tilt angle relative to a vertical axis, such that the top edges of
the lenses are closer than bottom lens edges to a vertical plane. Id. at 12.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Ramstad, as
modified in view of Khassanov, further in view of Rogers so Ramstad's
filters are tilted with respect to a vertical plane for the benefit of
accommodating particular viewing conditions of a viewer. Id. The
Examiner reasons that the resulting tilt would cause light to be reflected
away from the display surface of a theater, as recited in claim 19. Id.
Appellant argues that none of the relied upon references teaches
reflecting light "in a direction that is away from the display surface and
away from other wearers positioned in front of the wearer in the theatre."
Appeal Br. 17. We agree. Although the Examiner points to evidence
sufficient to support a determination that it would have been obvious to
adjust filter glasses relative to a user's comfort, including in a theater, the
Examiner does not point to evidence that such adjustment necessarily would
have resulted in an orientation such that light is reflected away from both the
display surface and other wearers. For that reason, we are persuaded that
8
Appeal2018-000507
Application 13/3 51,518
the Examiner does not identify evidence sufficient to support the obvious
determination as applied to claim 19.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19. The Examiner's rejection of claim
2 0 does not cure the deficiencies discussed above with regard to claim 19.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection
of claims 19 and 20.
C. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we:
I. sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1-18; and
II. do not sustain§ 103(a) rejection of claims 19 and 20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed-in-
part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9