RealD Spark, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

14751878 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
14/751,878 06/26/2015 Michael G. Robinson 373001 9103
145234 7590 09/02/2020
RealD Spark, LLC
9777 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
EXAMINER
DABBI, JYOTSNA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
docket@ntellectlaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patpros@reald.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL G. ROBINSON, GRAHAM J. WOODGATE, and
JONATHAN HARROLD
Appeal 2020-001252
Application 14/751,878
Technology Center 2800
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 10, 20, 21, and 27, which are all of

1 We refer to the Specification, filed June 26, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed December 13, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed June
11, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 3, 2019
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed December 3, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).

2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as RealD Spark, LLC.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001252
Application 14/751,878
2
the claims pending in the application. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a directional privacy display. Spec.
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A directional display apparatus comprising:
a directional backlight comprising
a waveguide comprising first and second, opposed
guide surfaces for guiding input light along the waveguide,
and
an array of light sources arranged to generate the
input light at different input positions across the
waveguide,
wherein the first guide surface is arranged to guide
light by total internal reflection, the second guide surface
comprises a plurality of light extraction features arranged
to deflect light guided through the waveguide out of the
waveguide through the first guide surface as output light
and intermediate regions between the light extraction
features that are arranged to guide light along the
waveguide, and the waveguide is arranged to direct the
output light into optical windows in output directions that
are distributed in a lateral direction in dependence on the
input position of the input light;
a transmissive spatial light modulator arranged to
receive the output light from the first guide surface of the
waveguide and to modulate it to display an image; and
a control system capable of controlling the spatial
light modulator and capable of selectively operating of
light sources to direct light into corresponding optical
windows, wherein stray light in the directional backlight
is directed in output directions outside the optical windows
corresponding to selectively operated light sources,
Appeal 2020-001252
Application 14/751,878
3
the control system is arranged to control the spatial
light modulator and the array of light sources in
synchronization with each other so that:
(a) the spatial light modulator displays a
primary image while at least one primary light
source is selectively operated to direct light into at
least one primary optical window for viewing by a
primary observer, and
(b) in a temporally multiplexed manner with
the display of the primary image, the spatial light
modulator displays a secondary image while at least
one light source other than the at least one primary
light source is selectively operated to direct light
into secondary optical windows outside the at least
one primary optical window, the secondary image
as perceived by a secondary observer outside the
primary optical window obscuring the primary
image that modulates the stray light directed outside
the primary optical window,
wherein light through the spatial light
modulator directed to the secondary observer has a
non-zero luminance that provides for reduced
contrast of at least one of the primary image and the
secondary image compared to contrast of the at least
one of the primary image and secondary image as
viewed by the primary observer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chung
Robinson
US 2007/0121047 A1
US 2012/0127573 A1
May 31, 2007
May 24, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 1–5, 10, 20, 21, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Robinson and Chung. Final Act. 3–
12.
Appeal 2020-001252
Application 14/751,878
4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–12) and (2) the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–5) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Because Appellant argues the claims collectively and does not dispute
that all the limitations of claim 1 preexisted Appellant’s invention, the sole
issue before us is whether the Examiner’s reasoning for combining the
references lacks a rational underpinning. See Appeal Brief 11–12; Reply Br.
4–6. For at least the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 4–5), we are not
persuaded of error.
“‘The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Here, because there is no dispute
that Appellant’s claim amounts to a combination of familiar elements, and
because Appellant offers no persuasive evidence that unknown methods
were used by Appellant or that the results were unpredictable, Appellant’s
claim is “likely to be obvious” according to our reviewing court.
Appeal 2020-001252
Application 14/751,878
5
The Examiner finds the combination to be obvious “for the purpose of
utilizing a display with an adjustable viewing mode and which protects a
user’s privacy in a crowded place.” Final Act. 7, (emphasis omitted) (citing
Chung ¶ 32 (“An object of the present invention is to provide an in-plane
switching mode liquid crystal display device with an adjustable viewing
angle . . . in which a notebook user’s privacy and/or security can be
protected even in a crowed public place . . . .”)).
Appellant contends “the Office Action fails to provide proper
motivation for modifying Robinson in view of Chung” because “Robinson
already provides for a display with an adjustable image and a privacy mode,
which amounts to a solution for which the Office Action incorporates
Chung.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant does not provide sufficient persuasive evidence or argument
to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning. Final Act. 7 (“for the
purpose of utilizing a display with an adjustable viewing mode and which
protects a user’s privacy in a crowded place”). In particular, we do not agree
with Appellant that Robinson’s “adjustable image and a privacy mode”
“amounts to” “utilizing a display with an adjustable viewing mode and
which protects a user’s privacy in a crowded place,” i.e., Examiner’s
reasoning. Final Act. 7. Appellant quotes from Robinson then declares––
without explanation–– that “Robinson does teach a display with an
adjustable image and a privacy mode.” Appeal Br. 12. Without more, we
are not persuaded that this key premise of Appellant’s argument against
obviousness is true.
In contrast, the Examiner provides evidence that the motivation to
“utilize[] a display with an adjustable viewing mode and which protects a
user’s privacy in a crowded place” pre-existed Appellant’s claimed
Appeal 2020-001252
Application 14/751,878
6
invention. Final Act. 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Chung ¶ 32). We
determine the Examiner’s reasoning is rational and supported by evidence
drawn from the record, and Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us
otherwise.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of all pending claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References  Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10, 20,
21, 27
103 Robinson,
Chung
1–5, 10, 20,
21, 27

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED