Ex Parte Yona et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2012

09818575 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/818,575 03/28/2001 Zvi Yona 50387 3666
67801 7590 01/27/2012
MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC.
P.O. BOX 16446
ARLINGTON, VA 22215
EXAMINER
CHANG, AUDREY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ZVI YONA, SASSON ABRAHAM, SHMUEL SHALOM,
ARON ARLIEVSKY, and ODED HAMBURGER
____________

Appeal 2009-012237
Application 09/818,575
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MECADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-012237
Application 09/818,575

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants‟ claimed invention is an apparatus for increasing a field of
view of an image in a head mounted personal display without substantially
increasing the size or weight of relay optics (Spec. 1:4-5; 2:8-9).
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. Apparatus comprising:

an image source to produce along a common optical
axis at least first and second complementary images
differing in at least one optical property selected from the
group consisting of polarization and wavelength;

relay optics having a relay optics field of view
associated with said images; and

a redirecting unit coupled to said image source to
direct at least said first and second images to at least first
and second different, respective, spatial regions of a
reflecting unit based on said different optical property,
thereby to enable viewing at least said first and second
images together by an eye of a viewer as an integrated image
having a field of view wider than said relay optics field of
view.

REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
1

The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-23, 35, and 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Preston (US 6,094,283).
The Examiner rejected claims 34, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Preston and Chauvin (US 5,198,928).

1
The Examiner‟s Answer withdrew this rejection (Ans. 8).
Appeal 2009-012237
Application 09/818,575

3
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Florence (US 5,652,666).
2

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-38
The Examiner finds Preston teaches all the limitations of claim 1
except it does not explicitly teach the field of view of an integrated image is
wider than the field of view of relay optics, as claimed (Ans. 3-4).
3
The
Examiner finds it would be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify
Preston‟s geometrical arrangement of various elements and the field
properties of a redirecting unit to obtain a final image having a greater field
of view than that of the relay optics (Ans. 4).
Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding Preston
directs first and second images to at least first and second different,
respective, spatial regions of a reflecting unit, as claimed (emphasis added)
(Reply Br. 3). Rather, Appellants argue, Preston directs color components
from an image source to the same place (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 2).
4
As the
Examiner finds, the different colored image components of Preston are
directed to different holograms and the holograms have a stacked layer

2
Although Appellants withdrew claims 8 and 17 from this appeal, by the
Reply Brief filed March 23, 2006 (Reply Br. 5), Appellants‟ subsequent
Briefs filed on June 11, 2007, and August 13, 2007, in addition to the
Examiner‟s Answer mailed November 2, 2007, address claims 8 and 17.
Thus, these claims are alive in this appeal.
3
The Examiner‟s Answer mailed November 2, 2007, is referenced
throughout this Opinion.
4
Appellants Brief filed August 13, 2007, is referenced throughout this
Opinion
Appeal 2009-012237
Application 09/818,575

4
structure (Reply Br. 3; Ans. 10). Thus, Appellants argue, they differ only in
depth. We agree. The Examiner has not pointed to any portion of Preston
that would lead a skilled artisan to believe the images are directed to first
and second different, respective, spatial regions of the reflecting unit.
Further, a stacked layer structure is not the same as different spatial regions
that result in a field of view wider than the relay optics field of view, as
recited in claim 1. That is, Appellants‟ claim language requires the images
to be adjacent each other rather than superimposed as Preston discloses.
Thus, claim 1, independent claims 10 and 19 that include the same
limitations, and dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, 18, 20-33, 35, and 37, are
not obvious over Preston.
Claims 34, 36, and 38
Claims 34, 36, and 38 depend from claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, these claims are also found not to be
obvious over the combination of Preston and Chauvin, as Chauvin does not
cure Preston‟s deficiencies.
Claims 8 and 17
The Examiner finds Florence discloses all the limitations in
Appellants‟ claims 8 and 17 (Ans. 7-8).
Appellants contend “Florence does not disclose, teach or suggest at
least „an image source to produce along a common optical axis at least first
and second complementary images,‟” as claimed. Rather, Appellants
contend, although Florence has vertical strips that may be first and second
complementary images, they are not produced along a common optical axis.
That is, they are “along adjacent but separate optical axes.” (App. Br. 20)
Appeal 2009-012237
Application 09/818,575

5
Florence uses a spatial light modulator for generating holographic
images representing a vertical image strip of a fringe pattern of a hologram
(col. 1, ll. 64-67). The image is de-magnified in a horizontal direction and is
displayed on an image plane at a first position. The process is repeated for a
number of image strips “such that the image strips are displayed in a
horizontal series across said image plane.” (Col. 2, ll. 1-8). Thus, as
Appellants contend, each image is produced along adjacent and separate
optical axes. Therefore, claims 8 and 17 are not obvious over Florence.

DECISION
The Examiner‟s decision rejecting claims 1-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.

REVERSED

kis