KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 8, 2020

14772543 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2020)

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.
14/772,543 09/03/2015 OLEXANDR VALENTYNOVYCH VDOVIN 2012P01395WOUS 8670
24737 7590 04/08/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
DABBI, JYOTSNA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLEXANDR VALENTYNOVYCH VDOVIN, BART KROON,
EIBERT GERJAN VAN PUTTEN, and MARK THOMAS JOHNSON
Appeal 2019-003540
Application 14/772,543
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–19.3
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed September 3, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated May 31, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed October 25, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer dated February 14, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed April 2,
2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-003540
Application 14/772,543

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a transparent autostereoscopic display. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A transparent autostereoscopic display having at least
a 3D autostereoscopic display mode and a transparent display
mode, the transparent autostereoscopic device comprising:
a display panel having a display mode and a transparent
mode, the display panel displaying content in the display mode
and being substantially transparent in the transparent mode; and
a polarisation independent optical arrangement for
directing different views in different spatial directions, the
optical arrangement being switchable between a multi-view
mode enabling autosteroscopic viewing and a transparent non-
lensing mode in which light is transmitted independent of
polarisation and without distortion,
wherein, in the 3D autostereoscopic display mode, the
display panel is driven to the display mode and the optical
arrangement is driven to the multi-view mode, and in the
transparent display mode, the display panel is driven to the
transparent mode and the optical arrangement is driven to the
transparent non-lensing mode.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Appeal 2019-003540
Application 14/772,543

3
Name Reference Date
Feenstra
Kim
US 7,307,672 B2
US 9,128,332 B2
Dec. 11, 2007
Sept. 8, 2015
Shestak
Ha
Chen
Lee
US 2008/0068329 A1
US 2012/0001184 A1
US 2012/0147059 A1
EP 2 309 768 A2
Mar. 20, 2008
Jan. 5, 2012
June 14, 2012
Apr. 13, 2011

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 12–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Lee. Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Feenstra. Final Act. 12.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lee in view of Chen. Final Act. 14.
4. Claims 7, 8, and 19 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Ha. Final Act. 15.
5. Claim 9 is rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee
in view of Shestak. Final Act. 17.
6. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim. Final Act. 18.

OPINION
The Examiner found that the claim 1 recitation “[a] transparent
autostereoscopic display having at least a 3D autostereoscopic display mode
and a transparent display mode” reads on Lee’s “parallex barrier type
display unit 151” (Lee ¶ 152). Final 4. In support of this finding, the
Appeal 2019-003540
Application 14/772,543

4
Examiner cites Lee paragraphs 152–153. Final 4–5. In paragraph 152, Lee
discloses that display unit 151 comprises general display device 151a in
combination with switch LC (liquid crystals) 151b. When switch LC 151b
activates optical parallex barrier 1000 to control a propagating direction of
light, a user experiences a 3D or stereoscopic effect when viewing an image
displayed on general display device 151a. Lee ¶ 152. Alternatively, switch
LC 151b may deactivate optical parallex barrier 1000 to enable full
transmission of light. Id. ¶ 153.
The Examiner found that the claim 1 recitation “a polarisation
independent optical arrangement for directing different views in different
spatial directions” reads on Lee’s optical parallex barrier 1000. Final 5. As
to the claim 1 requirement that the optical arrangement is switchable
between a “multi-view mode” and a “transparent non-lensing mode,” the
Examiner found that Lee describes these features in paragraphs 152 and 153,
respectively. Final 5. Lee discloses that when optical parallex barrier 1000 is
activated, light is separated into two lights that arrive at a user’s left eye and
right eye, respectively. Lee ¶ 152. When display device 151a displays an
image generated by combining the left eye and right eye images, the user
feels the 3D or stereoscopic effect. Id. Lee discloses that when optical
parallex barrier 1000 is deactivated, light is fully transmitted without
separation. Lee ¶ 153.
The Examiner found that the “display panel of [Lee’s] display unit
151” has “a display mode and a transparent mode” as recited in claim 1.
Final 5 (citing Lee ¶¶ 152–153). Specifically, the Examiner found that when
switch LC 151b activates optical parallex barrier 1000, the display panel is
driven to the display mode in which a user can view a 3D image. Final 5.
Appeal 2019-003540
Application 14/772,543

5
The Examiner found that when switch LC 151b deactivates optical parallex
barrier 1000, the display panel is driven to the transparent mode in which
light is fully transmitted without separation. Final 3.
Lee discloses that the display method described in connection with
parallex barrier type display unit 151 is applicable to transparent display unit
156. Lee ¶ 154; see Reply Br. 5 (“Applicants note that the display unit 151
corresponds to transparent display unit 156 in other figures of Lee et al., as
acknowledged by the Examiner, and thus reference numbers 151 and 156 are
used interchangeably.”). Transparent display unit 156, a light-transmissive
or transparent type display, is configured to be overlapped with main display
unit 157, a non-transmissive-type display, e.g., the two displays may be
rotatably hinged to each other. Lee ¶¶ 100, 103, 141. When transparent
display unit 156 is folded over main display unit 157, a mobile terminal may
display a 2D map via main display unit 157. Id. ¶ 176; see id. at Fig. 13(a).
When transparent display unit 156 is tilted by about 45 degrees with respect
to main display unit 157, a user is able to view a 3D map via transparent
display unit 156. Lee ¶ 157; see id. at Fig. 13(b).
The Appellant argues that claim 1 is not anticipated by Lee because
Lee fails to disclose the following claimed features: (1) a display panel
having two different modes (Appeal Br. 7); and (2) a display panel that is
capable of being driven to a display mode (Appeal Br. 9). The Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation for the reasons discussed in the Answer and below. See Ans. 4–
12.
The Appellant argues that light always passes through Lee’s general
display device 151a to the user’s eyes regardless of whether optical parallex
Appeal 2019-003540
Application 14/772,543

6
barrier 1000 is activated or deactivated and, therefore, Lee’s display panel
has only a single mode—a transparent mode—rather than two modes—a
transparent mode and a display mode—as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 7.
As to the transparent mode, claim 1 recites “a display panel . . . being
substantially transparent in the transparent mode.” The Specification defines
“substantially transparent” as “mean[ing] that it is possible to look through
the panel and view the scene behind.” Spec. 2:11–13. As found by the
Examiner (see Ans. 12), Lee discloses that “a mobile terminal is able to
display a 2D map via a main display unit 157 while a transparent display
unit 156 . . . is folded over the main display unit 157” (Lee ¶ 176). See also
Ans. 6 (“[T]ransparent display 156 passes the 2D map image from main
display unit 157 but does not show any images of its own.”). In other words,
when transparent display unit 156 is folded over main display unit 157, a
user can look through transparent display unit 156 and view the scene
behind—a 2D map displayed on main display unit 157.
As to the display mode, claim 1 recites “the display panel displaying
content in the display mode.” Lee discloses that the transparent display unit
is activated by entering a tilt state.” Lee ¶ 128. Lee discloses that in the tilt
state, a 2D picture or a 3D image can be output to transparent display unit
156. Id. ¶ 129.
The Appellant argues that in the tilt state, Lee’s display panel is still in
a transparent mode because light still passes through the device to a user’s
eyes. Appeal Br. 6. This argument is not persuasive because the
Specification supports a broader interpretation of claim 1 as encompassing a
“partially transparent” display mode. Spec. 8:2–30 (“Figure 4(c) shows a
partially transparent display mode with 3D content 42 as well as 2D content
Appeal 2019-003540
Application 14/772,543

7
40 over different display areas. Of course there can be 2D or 3D content
over the full screen or any combination of display areas.”).
The Appellant also argues that Lee does not disclose a display panel
that is capable of being driven to a display mode because Lee’s “display
device 151a is passive (i.e., not driven to do anything), in that it is
transparent and simply passes whatever is transmitted through the parallax
barrier 1000.” Appeal Br. 9. The Appellant argues that display unit 151/156
works in combination with main display unit 157 and “does not show and is
not capable of showing a 3D display by itself.” Appeal Br. 9; see Reply Br.
7–8 (“Lee et al. simply does not disclose a display unit that displays a 3D
image (or a 2D image) that it generates, as opposed to merely passing
through an image generated by another display unit (i.e., the main display
unit 157).”). These arguments are not persuasive because, as found by the
Examiner (Ans. 8), Lee discloses that “a 3D user interface . . . can be output
via the transparent display unit 156 or the main display unit 157” (Lee ¶ 129
(emphasis added)). Further, the Appellant has not shown persuasively that
the Examiner erred in determining that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claim 1 term “driven” reads on activation of Lee’s transparent display
unit 156 by moving it to a tilt state and deactivation of transparent display
unit 156 by moving it to a folded state. See Ans. 6, 11. We have reviewed
the Specification and, like the Examiner, find no support for the Appellant’s
narrower construction of the claim term “driven.”
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant argues that the Examiner takes a
different approach in the Answer than in the Final and Advisory Actions by
“asserting that the entire transparent display unit 151 in FIG. 10 of Lee et al.
teaches the ‘display panel’ in claim 1.” Reply Br. 5 (citing Ans. 6). We
Appeal 2019-003540
Application 14/772,543

8
disagree that the Examiner advances a new position in the Answer.
However, even if the Appellant was correct, we would still decline to
address the Appellant’s arguments regarding this alleged new position. Our
decision is based on a determination that the Appellant has not identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning set forth in the
Final Action.
The Appellant relies on the same arguments in support of patentability
of the remaining claims subject to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as
well as the claims subject to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See
Appeal Br. 10–13. Accordingly, we sustain all grounds of rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 12–
18
102(b) Lee 1, 2, 5, 12–
18

3, 6 103(a) Lee, Feenstra 3, 6
4 103(a) Lee, Chen 4
7, 8, 19 103(a) Lee, Ha 7, 8, 19
9 103(a) Lee, Shestak 9
10, 11 103(a) Lee, Kim 10, 11
Overall
Outcome:
  1–19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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