Ex Parte 6703988 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 1, 2009

90007318 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 1, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FERGASON PATENT PROPERTIES, LLC,
Appellant and Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
Patent 6,703,988 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Decided: September 01, 2009
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and KEVIN F.
TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
FERGASON PATENT PROPERTIES, LLC1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134(b) and 306 from a final rejection of claims 3-29, 31, 32, 35-37, and
39-68. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Fergason Patent Properties, LLC is the real party in interest and the current
owner of the patent under reexamination.
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for ex parte reexamination filed
by Fergason Patent Properties, LLC, on November 24, 2004, of United
States Patent 6,703,988 B1 issued to James L. Fergason on March 9, 2004,
based on United States Application 09/611,541 filed July 7, 2000.
Patentee’s invention relates to three-dimensional display systems
(Spec. Col. 1, ll. 10-15). The apparatus includes two flat panel displays
(12a, 12b), which are arranged at an angle relative to each other, and a beam
splitter (14) at the bisectrix between the two displays. A stereoscope image
is obtained by left and right eye images being presented by the displays
which have different, discernable polarizations (id. at col. 2, 30-48; Fig. 1).
Claims 3, 10, and 45, which we deem to be representative, read as
follows (where mark-ups to those claims have been omitted):
3. A display system comprising a pair of displays, each
having a polarized light output, the polarization direction for
both displays being the same, the displays being at an angle to
each other, and a beam splitter so positioned relative to the two
displays at the bisectrix of said angle to combine images from
the displays whereby one image is transmitted by the beam
splitter and the other image is reflected by the beam splitter to
provide direct view of images from the displays, and
wherein the displays and the beam splitter are in
respective planes that are parallel to a common linear axis,
wherein light output from the displays is linear polarized,
wherein the light output incident on the beam splitter from
one of the displays has a polarization direction at 45 degrees to
the linear axis prior to reflection, the light output being
transmitted along an optical path,
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

3
whereby upon reflection by the beam splitter of the
polarization direction of the reflected linear polarized light
relative to the polarization direction of the linear polarized
light prior to reflection is rotated 90 degrees about the optical
path, and
wherein the displays are identical flat panel LCDs and the
polarization of the LCDs are at 45 degrees to the horizontal,
whereby an image from one LCD transmitted through the beam
splitter for viewing and the image from the other LCD which is
reflected from the beam splitter will have linear polarization at
right angles.

10. A display system comprising a pair of displays, each
having a polarized light output, the polarization direction for
both displays being the same, the displays being at an angle to
each other, and a beam splitter so positioned relative to the two
displays at the bisectrix of said angle to combine images from
the displays whereby one image is transmitted by the beam
splitter and the other image is reflected by the beam splitter to
provide direct view of images from the displays, and
wherein the displays and the beam splitter are in
respective planes that are parallel to a common linear axis,
wherein light output from the displays is linear polarized,
wherein the light output incident on the beam splitter from
one of the displays has a polarization direction at 45 degrees to
the linear axis prior to reflection, the light output being
transmitted along an optical path,
whereby upon reflection by the beam splitter the
polarization direction of the reflected linear polarized light
relative to the polarization direction of the linear polarized light
prior to reflection is rotated 90 degrees about the optical path,
and
wherein a stereo signal is received as a stereo pair, one of
the stereo pairs is provided to one display and the other of the
stereo pairs is provided to the other display, and the display
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

4
viewed through the beam splitter is scanned from left to right
and the display that is reflected by the beam splitter for viewing
is scanned from right to left.

45. A display system comprising a pair of displays, each
having a polarized light output, the polarization for both
displays being the same, the displays being at an angle to each
other, and a beam splitter so positioned relative to the two
displays at the bisectrix of said angle to combine images from
the displays whereby one image is transmitted by the beam
splitter and the other image is reflected by the beam splitter to
provide direct view of images from the displays, and
wherein the displays and the beam splitter are in
respective planes that are parallel to a common linear axis,
wherein the light incident on the beam splitter from the
two displays has circular polarization in the same sense,
whereby upon reflection by the beam splitter the
polarization sense of the reflected circular polarized light is
reversed relative to the polarization sense of the circular
polarized light prior to reflection.

The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims and supporting those rejections are:
Huffman 2,845,618 Jul. 29, 1958
Tilton 5,283,640 Feb. 1, 1994
Eichenlaub 5,410,345 Apr. 25, 1995
McNelley 5,777,665 Jul. 7, 1998
Yasui 6,163,022 Dec. 19, 2000
Ngoi 6,271,924 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
Kim 6,400,394 B1 Jun. 4, 2002
Omar 6,449,090 B1 Sep. 10, 2002
Acosta 6,765,640 B1 Jul. 20, 2004
Ueno (“JP-027”) JP 63-074027 Apr. 4, 1988

Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

5
The Examiner rejected the following claims on the indicated bases
(Ans. 4-63):
1) claims 3-13, 31, 35, 37, and 39-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by JP-027;
2) claims 14, 32, 45-55, and 57-68 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over JP-027 and Omar;
3) claims 19-21 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP-
027 and Huffman;
4) claims 23-26 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP-
027, Huffman and Omar;
5) claims 15-18, 27-29, and 36 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over JP-027 and Kim;
6) claim 22 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP-027
and McNelley;
7) claim 56 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP-027,
Omar, and Kim;
8) claims 3-14, 19-21, 23-26, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 45-55, and 57-68
under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huffman and Omar;
9) claim 22 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Huffman, Omar, and McNelley; and
10) claims 15-18, 27-29, 36, 40-43, and 56 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huffman, Omar, and Kim.
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

6
Appellant relied upon the following in rebuttal to the Examiner’s
rejection:
Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of James L. Fergason dated October 17,
2007 (App. Br., Evidence Appendix) (“Fergason Decl.”).

ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejections are in error because
the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest all of the elements of the
claims. Specifically, with respect to independent claims 3, 37, and 44,
Appellant argues that JP-027 and Huffman in view of Omar fail to teach or
suggest identical flat panel LCDs as recited in those claims (App. Br. 13-15,
29-30). With respect to independent claims 7 and 10, Appellant argues that
JP-027 and Huffman in view of Omar fail to teach or suggest displays
scanned top to bottom and the reverse or displays scanned left to right and
the reverse (App. Br. 15-18, 31-33). Appellant also argues, with respect to
independent claims 45, 53, and 60, that Omar teaches away from both JP-
027 and Huffman, in that Omar provides images with light polarized with
different handedness, while those claims require light polarized in the same
sense from the two displays (App. Br. 20-22, 35-37).
The Examiner finds that JP-027 and Huffman in view of Omar
provide for identical displays, at least within the context of claim 3 (Ans. 64-
67, 80-82). With respect to claims 7 and 10, the Examiner finds that
Appellant is conflating the issues of raster scanning and presentation of the
images and that the systems in the cited references must provide such
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

7
presentation to create three-dimensional images (Ans. 67-74, 83-87).
Additionally, the Examiner finds JP-027 and Huffman, taken with the
teachings of Omar, suggest claims 45, 53, and 60 because one of ordinary
skill in the art would have used the circularly polarized light in systems of
JP-027 and Huffman, even with the different handedness (Ans. 75-78, 88-
89).
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Thus, the issues arising from the respective positions of Appellant and
the Examiner are:
Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination
that JP-027 and Huffman in view of Omar teach or suggest identical flat
panel LCDs as recited in independent claims 3, 37, and 44?
Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination
that JP-027 and Huffman in view of Omar teach or suggest displays scanned
top to bottom and the reverse or displays scanned left to right and the reverse
as recited in independent claims 7 and 10?
Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination
that Omar does not teaches away from both JP-027 and Huffman, to supply
images from light polarized in the same sense from the two displays as
recited in independent claims 45, 53, and 60?
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

8
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The instant Specification discloses a three-dimensional display
system, which includes two flat panel displays (12a, 12b), which
are arranged at an angle relative to each other, and a beam splitter
(14) at the bisectrix between the two displays. A stereoscope
image is obtained by left and right eye images being presented by
the displays which have different, discernable polarizations (Spec.
col. 2, 30-48; Fig. 1).
2. The instant Specification provides that the flat panels displays may
be liquid crystal displays (LCDs), each with a linear polarizer, that
may be integrally part of the displays (Id. at col. 4, ll. 50-54).
3. Circularly polarized light may also used to produce the images (Id.
at col. 3, ll. 48-51).
4. The image information on one of the displays is reversed, where
that may be accomplished by scanning of the image data or
providing of the image data to the display in opposite directions
(Id. at col. 9, l. 59 – col. 10, l. 17; Figs. 8B, 8C)
5. JP-027 discloses a stereoscopic image display device having two
LCD panels, with polarized surfaces on each, and a half mirror
interposed between the panels (P. 4, ll. 1-6; Fig. 1, elements 5, 8, 9,
10).
6. JP-027 discloses that “the same type of liquid crystal display
panels having the same polarized surfaces can be used for surfaces
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

9
a and b. Since the invention is carried out using the same type of
liquid crystal display panels, it is extremely convenient” (P. 4, ll.
7-10).
7. Huffman discloses a television viewing device where two
television images are provided on a common area (Col. 1, ll. 15-
20). The systems uses two cathode ray tubes, having screens in
planes substantially normal to each other, and a semi-transparent
mirror located at an angle of substantially 45° to the horizontal
(Col. 2, ll. 4-21; Fig. 3, elements 21, 22, 31).
8. Omar discloses a three-dimensional display system, using multiple
LCD display panels, where light from the panels is polarized in
mutually perpendicular directions (Abs.). Omar discloses that the
use of linearly polarized light can lead to cross-talk between
images when the observer tilts his or her head, such that use of
circularly polarized light eliminates this disadvantage (Col. 6, ll.
19-60).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

10
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007).
KSR disapproved a rigid approach to obviousness (i.e., an analysis
limited to lack of teaching, suggestion, or motivation). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at
419 (“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.”).
During patent examination pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow. During patent prosecution, claims
can be amended, such that a broad interpretation allows ambiguities to be
recognized, the scope and breath of claim language to be explored and
clarification to be imposed. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation over JP-027
Claims 3-6, 8, 12, 13, 31, 32, 35, 37, and 39-44
With respect to independent claim 3, Appellant argues that JP-027
fails to teach or suggest identical flat panel LCDs as recited in that claim
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

11
(App. Br. 13-15). The Examiner finds that JP-027 provides for identical
displays, at least within the context of claim 3 (Ans. 64-67). We agree with
the Examiner.
While Appellant focuses on the differences between “same type of
liquid crystal panels” and “identical LCDs,” we think that such discussion
misses the mark. Appellant has been unable to point to any aspect in JP-027
that would suggest the panels selected would not be identical. Appellant’s
argument would have us accept that one of ordinary skill in the art reading
the JP-027 disclosure, for example, would select LCD panels of the same
type (FF 6) but would nonetheless choose panels different with respect to
size, pixel arrangement or different color renditions (Fergason Decl. ¶ 8).
Appellant’s argument seems to be that the panels in JP-027 might not be
identical, but such an argument is equally convincing that they might be
identical. Given the variables associated with constructing such display
devices, we can find no suggestion that one of ordinary skill would wish to
introduce additional variables by varying the size or make-up of the selected
panels. Additionally, even if we accept declarant Fergason’s position as to
what constitutes identical flat panel displays (Fergason Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10), we
can find no reason why a reader of JP-027 would not understand the panels
disclosed to be identical under such a definition. As such, we do not find
Appellant’s argument to be compelling.
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 37 and 44 is
improper on the same basis as argued for independent claim 3 (App. Br. 19-
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

12
20). In addition, Appellant argues that the rejection of dependent claims 4-6,
8, 12, 13, 31, 32, 35, and 39-43 is improper by virtue of their dependence on
independent claims 3, 37, and 44. Since we do not find Appellant’s
arguments with respect to claim 3 to be compelling, we find no error in the
rejection of these other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3-6, 8, 12, 13, 31, 35, 37, and 39-44 as anticipated by JP-
027.

Anticipation over JP-027
Claims 7 and 9-11
With respect to independent claims 7 and 10, Appellant argues that
JP-027 fails to teach or suggest one display scanned left to right and the
other display scanned in the reverse (App. Br. 15-18). The Examiner finds
that Appellant is conflating the issues of raster scanning and presentation of
the images and that the systems in the cited references must provide such
presentation to create three-dimensional images (Ans. 67-74). We agree
with Appellant and find the Examiner erred with respect to the rejection of
claims 7 and 10.
The Examiner has argued for a different meaning of “scanned” from
claims 7 and 10 (Ans. 68-70), based on the disclosure of the instant
application. However, we do not find that term in claims 7 or 10, or as used
in the instant Specification (FF 4), to be subject the same interpretation
found by the Examiner. The scanning illustrated in Appellant’s Figs. 8B, 8C
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

13
seems to make this clear. The Examiner argues that for overlap of the two
images to occur, one of the images must be inverted (Ans. 72), where all
parties seem to agree to this fact. However, the Examiner finds that in order
to invert the image, one has to raster scan in the opposite direction, where
Appellant argues that this need not be the case. Appellant argues that “both
displays can be scanned from top to bottom at a rate where flicker is not
evident to the viewer of the displays” (App. Br. 32). As such, we do not
agree with the Examiner’s apparent position that JP-027 must inherently
provide for scanning in opposite directions by the two displays. Therefore,
JP-027 fails to teach or suggest all of the elements of claims 7 and 10. Thus,
we find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 10 to be anticipated by
JP-027. Similarly, we find the rejections of dependent claims 9 and 11 to
have also been made in error.

Obviousness over JP-027 in view of Omar
Claims 14, 32, 45-55 and 57-68
Appellant argues with respect to independent claim 45 that Omar
teaches away from JP-027 and that claim, in that Omar provides images with
light polarized with different handedness, while that claim requires light
polarized in the same sense from the two displays (App. Br. 20-22). The
Examiner finds JP-027 taken with the teachings of Omar, suggest claim 45
because one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the circularly
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

14
polarized light in systems of JP-027, even with the different handedness
(Ans. 75-78). We generally agree with the Examiner.
As the Examiner has acknowledged, the systems of JP-027 and the
instant invention work differently than Omar in terms of the polarization
arrangement used (Ans. 88). Appellant’s argument appears to be that all of
the elements of Omar must be incorporated into JP-027 for there to be a
combination. We cannot agree. Common sense need not only guide a
combination but can also assist in how portions thereof are combined. KSR,
550 U.S. 398 at 420 (“[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”).
We are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art could have adopted
circularly polarized light for the systems in JP-027, especially based on the
benefits disclosed in Omar (FF 8). We do not find Omar to “teach away”
from the setup found in JP-027, and that the combination would have been
motivated on the basis provided in the rejection. As such, we find that the
combinations have been properly shown to render claim 45 obvious and we
find no error in the rejection of claim 45.
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 53 and 60 is
improper on the same basis as argued for independent claim 45 (App. Br.
38-39). In addition, Appellant argues that the rejection of dependent claims
46-52, 54, 55, 57-59, and 61-68 is improper by virtue of their dependence on
independent claims 45, 53, and 60. Since we do not find Appellant’s
arguments with respect to claim 45 to be compelling, we find no error in the
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

15
rejection of these other claims. Additionally, Appellant argues that claims
14 and 32 were rejected in error because those claims depend from claim 3
that was improperly rejected. Since we find no error in the rejection of
claim 3, we find no error in the rejection of claims 14 and 32. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 32, 45-55, and 57-68 as
being obvious over JP-027 in view of Omar.

Obviousness over Huffman in view of Omar
Claims 3-6, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 23-26, 31, 32, 35, and 37
With respect to independent claim 3, Appellant argues that Huffman
in view of Omar fails to teach or suggest identical flat panel LCDs as recited
in that claim (App. Br. 29-30). The Examiner finds that Huffman in view of
Omar provides for identical displays, at least within the context of claim 3
(Ans. 80-82). We agree with the Examiner.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 repeat largely the same
arguments discussed supra, with respect to the rejection over JP-027. With
respect to the rejection over Huffman in view of Omar, we do not find these
arguments to be any more compelling.
In addition, Appellant argues that the combination fails to teach or
suggest that the polarization directions of the LCDs are at 45 degrees to the
horizontal (App. Br. 29). However, the Examiner finds that the angles of
polarization for the beams from Huffman would have been 45° with respect
to the horizontal, but shifted because material out of which the semi-
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

16
transparent mirror was made (Ans. 81). The Examiner correctly provides
that such offsets would not have been used at the time of the instant
invention, as such a setup would have been updated to accommodate the
LCDs of Omar, as detailed in the rejection of claim 3. As such, we find no
error in the rejection of claim 3 over Huffman and Omar on this basis.
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claim 37 is improper on
the same basis as argued for independent claim 3 (App. Br. 38-39). In
addition, Appellant argues that the rejection of dependent claims 4-6, 8, 12-
14, 19-21, 23-26, 31, 32, and 35 is improper by virtue of their dependence
on independent claims 3 and 37. Since we do not find Appellant’s
arguments with respect to claim 3 to be compelling, we find no error in the
rejection of these other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3-6, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 23-26, 31, 32, 37, and 37 as obvious
over Huffman in view of Omar.

Obviousness over Huffman in view of Omar
Claims 7 and 9-11
With respect to independent claims 7 and 10, Appellant argues that
Huffman in view of Omar fails to teach or suggest that one display scanned
left to right and the other display scanned in the reverse (App. Br. 31-33).
The Examiner finds that Appellant is conflating the issues of raster scanning
and presentation of the images and that the systems in the cited references
must provide such presentation to create three-dimensional images (Ans. 83-
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

17
87). We agree with Appellant and find the Examiner erred with respect to
the rejection of claims 7 and 10.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 7 and 10 repeat largely
the same arguments discussed supra, with respect to the rejection over JP-
027. With respect to the rejection over Huffman in view of Omar, we do not
find Huffman and Omar to teach all of the elements. As discussed supra,
Omar fails to teach or suggest that one display scanned left to right and the
other display scanned in the reverse. Although the Examiner argues about
the meaning of the claim term “scanning” (Ans. 41-45), as discussed above,
we do not find any teaching or suggestion in Huffman. As such, we find the
rejection of claims 7 and 9-11 as being obvious over Huffman in view of
Omar to have been made in error.

Obviousness over Huffman in view of Omar
Claims 45-55, and 57-68
Appellant argues with respect to independent claim 45 that Omar
teaches away from Huffman and that claim, in that Omar provides images
with light polarized with different handedness, while that claim requires
light polarized in the same sense from the two displays (App. Br. 35-37).
The Examiner finds Huffman, taken with the teachings of Omar, suggests
claim 45 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the
circularly polarized light in systems of Huffman, even with the different
handedness (Ans. 88-89). We generally agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

18
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 45 repeat largely the
same arguments discussed supra, with respect to the rejection over JP-027.
With respect to the rejection over Huffman in view of Omar, we do not find
these arguments to be any more compelling.
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 53 and 60 is
improper on the same basis as argued for independent claim 45 (App. Br.
38-39). In addition, Appellant argues that the rejection of dependent claims
46-52, 54, 55, 57-59, and 61-68 is improper by virtue of their dependence on
independent claims 45, 53, and 60. Since we do not find Appellant’s
arguments with respect to claim 45 to be compelling, we find no error in the
rejection of these other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 45-55 and 57-68 as being obvious over Huffman in view
of Omar.

Obviousness over JP-027, Huffman, Omar, Kim, and McNelley
Claims 15-29, 36, 40-43, and 56
With respect to the rejections of claims 15-29, 36, 40-43, and 56,
Appellant argues that the rejections of these claims should be overturned by
virtue of their dependence on independent claims argued above. Since we
do not find Appellant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 3, 37,
44 and 53 to be compelling, we find no error in the rejections of the above-
cited dependent claims.

Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

19
CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that: (i) claims 3-6, 8, 12, 13, 31, 35, 37, and 39-44 are
anticipated by JP-027; (ii) claims 14, 32, 45-55, and 57-68 are unpatentable
over JP-027 and Omar; (iii) claims 19-21 are unpatentable over JP-027 and
Huffman; (iv) claims 23-26 are unpatentable over JP-027, Huffman and
Omar; (v) claims 15-18, 27-29, and 36 are unpatentable over JP-027 and
Kim; (vi) claim 22 is unpatentable over JP-027 and McNelley; (vii) claim 56
is unpatentable over JP-027, Omar, and Kim; (viii) claims 3-6, 8, 12-14, 19-
21, 23-26, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 45-55, and 57-68 are unpatentable over
Huffman and Omar; (ix) claim 22 is unpatentable over Huffman, Omar, and
McNelley; and (x) claims 15-18, 27-29, 36, 40-43, and 56 are unpatentable
over Huffman, Omar, and Kim.
Appellant has shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that: (xi) claims 7 and 9-11 are anticipated by JP-027; and (xii)
claims 7 and 9-11 are unpatentable over Huffman and Omar.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3-6, 8, 12-29, 31, 32,
35-37, and 39-68is AFFIRMED and the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 7 and 9-11 is REVERSED.

Appeal 2009-010985
Reexamination Control 90/007,318
United States Patent 6,703,988 B1

20
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

MAT

cc:
Warren A. Sklar
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR LLP
1621 Euclid Avenue
19th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44115