Ex parte ANDERSON et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 1998

08371684 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 12, 1995. 1
According to the appellants, this application is a
continuation of Application 08/082,312, filed June 24, 1993,
now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DOUGLAS W. ANDERSON,
THOMAS D. FISHER, GREGORY A. HATCH,
TOMMY D. WRIGHT and CHRISTINE R. SPIEGL
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,6841
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
The notice of appeal filed on July 17, 1985 lists only2
claims 1 to 31 and not claim 32. We consider the failure to
list claim 32 in the notice of appeal as an inadvertent error.

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s2
final rejection of claims 1 to 32, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A three dimensional display system comprising:
(a) a light transmitter having a plurality of light
transmitting elements for simultaneously generating a
plurality of beams of light, each of said beams of light
comprising a portion of a predetermined image, the totality of
said beams of light comprising said predetermined image;
(b) a controller for controlling each of said light
transmitting elements to periodically form said predetermined
image from said beams of light comprising a portion of said
predetermined image in a predetermined x-y plane;
(c) a light receiver/transmitter to receive and transmit
said predetermined image along an axis passing through said x-
y plane; and
(d) a rotating receiver having an axis of rotation along
said axis for receiving and displaying said predetermined
image, said light receiver being rotatable about said axis.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
3
Hirsch 3,077,816 Feb.
19, 1963
Ernstoff et al. (Ernstoff) 4,006,968 Feb.
08, 1977
Collender 4,290,083
Sep. 15, 1981
Hornbeck 5,061,049 Oct.
29, 1991
Claims 1 to 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the
collective teachings of Hirsch, Collender, Hornbeck and
Ernstoff.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We sustain the above noted rejection of all claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Although the examiner appears
to contend in portions of the answer that certain teachings of
one reference could be used in another reference and that
other features can be substituted in the teaching of another
reference, the essential point of the examiner is correct,
that being that the collective teachings of the references
clearly would have indicated to the artisan that a planar
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
4
image is transmitted substantially simultaneously to convey an
entire field of information or a total image.
The three dimensional display system of the preamble of
independent claim 1 on appeal is shown in essence in both
Hirsch and Collender. A three dimensional display is
essentially conveyed to a viewer in both references by means
of rotating a two dimensional image by the action of
stereoscopy. In reaching this conclusion of obviousness of
the subject matter of the claims on appeal we are mindful that
in the middle of page 2 of the specification appellants have
defined the term "simultaneously" as "appearing to the viewer
to be simultaneous-- even though the points of light are not
initially generated simultaneously in time." Hirsch’s flash
lamp 110 conveys a beam of light to film 135, each frame 146
of which yields a x-y planar image of light beams convey
through various mirrors and optics to a coaxial rear
projection screen 56 in Fig. 1. This screen 56 rotates in
unison with the rest of the optics and mirrors to display in a
three dimensional form the planar image from each film frame
146.
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
5
The bottom of col. 1 of Hirsch indicates that the prior
art utilized cathode ray tubes as a rotatable image projection
apparatus to a rotating screen. However, the top of col. 2 of
this reference indicates that it was considered to have been
an advantage in Hirsch that a moving film projector would have
generated an entire sectional image at once, thus not
requiring the use of scanning techniques as in the cathode ray
tube approach of the prior art to Hirsch. The advantage was
that whole sectional images of scenes were displayed for an
entire period of the screen movement to add increased detail
and image intensity to the viewer. Color film was also taught
as well. This analysis is basically repeated at col. 6,
beginning at line 22.
Although Hirsch would have indicated to the artisan that
the use of television images, which must inherently be scanned
in a rastor-scan approach, would have been a disadvantage for
such a three dimensional display system, Collender’s approach
allows TV signals to be conveyed in a three dimensional manner
to the viewer. Collender’s approach allows successive whole
frames of television information to be scanned individually
and successively for a viewer to enjoy in a three dimensional
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
6
depiction. Note the abstract at lines 10 to 19; col. 1, lines
25 through 37; col. 5, lines 13 through 15; col. 5, line 64
through col. 6, line 19 and col. 6, lines 32 through 48 as
they relate to teachings associated with Fig. 6 of Collender.
The essential means to achieve this approach is by means
of 24 CCDLCLV x-y planar elements over arrayed in an arc
corresponding to the showing of element 2 in Figs. 1 and 2B.
In contradistinction to appellants’ arguments, each of these
elements is not merely a CCD but is also a liquid crystal
light valve LCLV. Appellants’ own positions in the brief
relative to Collender indicate that the charged couple array
provides a data storage capability which feeds the liquid
crystal light valves in parallel with data collected in the
CCD’s. Thus, the planar type image of a television frame in
Collender is permitted to be depicted substantially
simultaneously to the extent claimed. From an artisan’s
perspective then, the teachings in Collender would have been
an obvious enhancement to the overall approach taken by Hirsch
since entire television frames of information may be depicted
in the same manner that a motion picture frame 146 in Hirsch
may be depicted in its entirety in a successive manner and,
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
7
whereas Hirsch’s approach disfavored the use of television
type signals through a CRT device, Collender’s device permits
such a signal and type of information to be conveyed in a
three dimensional environment.
The details of the CCDLCLV element discussed have been
known in the prior art beginning at col. 7, line 26 of
Collender. Indeed, this portion, at lines 60 through 63,
makes a specific cross reference to Ernstoff, another
reference relied upon by the examiner in this rejection, by
patent number to provide a color capability to the liquid
crystal matrix array described in that reference. Col. 8,
lines 8 through 12 also indicate that other solid state
imaging surfaces may be used to produce image arrays either by
reflective or transmissive means indicating that the liquid
crystal approach was merely cited as one of those means. To
the artisan, this logically leads to Hornbeck’s teachings.
As to Ernstoff, it appears that each picture element
forming an entire planar color image is formed by three
primary color components using band reflective mirrors such as
dichroic mirrors in the back of the liquid crystal materials
forming the planar matrix array. Each color "cell" in this
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
8
reference is formed of the triads represented in Fig. 4 where
element 57 in Fig. 6A shows the dichroic reflector mirrors.
The discussion at col. 3 of this reference conveys to the
reader the recognition that such a full color flat panel
liquid crystal display apparatus in Ernstoff may replace an
ordinary cathode ray tube device, discussed in Hirsch and
normally used to convey television information as in
Collender. At least these portions of Ernstoff are pertinent
as relating to the dichroic mirrors: Col. 6, lines 27 through
32 and col. 7, line 53 through col. 8, line 4. As recognized
by Collender, noted earlier, the color image capability of
Ernstoff would have conveyed to the viewer plural beams of
light from a single planar matrix, each beam conveying a
separate color for convergence as a common beam for the
viewer.
The teachings in Hornbeck, utilized by the examiner as
the fourth reference of the combination utilized to reject all
the claims on appeal, is a specifically cross referenced prior
art document utilized by appellants as the basis for their
matrix of digital micromirror devices (DMDs) noted in the
paragraph bridging pages 12 and 13 of the specification as
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
9
filed. It is therefore recognized that such teachings in
Hornbeck provide a two dimensional image. Array Fig. 31 of
this reference shows two rows of pixels, which in itself is a
two dimensional array. Such an array was utilized in the
printing apparatus shown in Figs. 32a and 32b. A larger
planar array is shown in Figs. 42a and 42b.
The obvious substitutability of the spatial light
modulators (SLM) of Hornbeck, as reasoned by the examiner, for
the CCDLDV devices of Collender/Ernstoff is derived by a
careful study of Hornbeck’s teachings. The examiner has made
a general reference to both cols. 1 and 2 of Hornbeck. Col.
1, lines 32 through 34 indicate that such SLMs has found
numerous applications in the art for projection displays.
Certain SLM devices employed various effects such as liquid
crystal as indicated at col. 2, lines 11 through 18. A
combination of a CCD and LC array is noted at the bottom of
col. 2, again which portion was specifically cross referenced
in the statement of the rejection. This is precisely the same
type of device specifically taught as usable in the three
dimensional projection device of Collender. The discussion
beginning at col. 3 indicates that another SLM type of device
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
10
may be fabricated in both one and two dimensional arrays, the
deformable mirror, the discussion of which begins at col. 4,
lines 5 to 11 and indicates that they may be utilized in
linear or areal patterns for display purposes. Thus, it would
have been apparent to the artisan that these teachings of
Hornbeck clearly cross correlate and indicate the
substitutability of the DMD devices of Hornbeck for the prior
art approach depicted by the Collender/Ernstoff approach.
Indeed, the linear and areal arrays of pixels, each of which
may be individually addressable and containing at least one
deflectable reflecting beam of light, form the essence of the
teachings in Hornbeck beginning at col. 9, line 15. His
spatial light modulators were also therefore called deformable
mirror devices DMDs. From a study of Ernstoff’s structure
providing the color image capability of Collender’s device,
each pixel or cell in Ernstoff would apparently be
substantially colorless until the dichroic mirrors were placed
in such a position as to reflect a certain color to the viewer
for each pixel or cell. In a similar manner, the
deflectability of the reflecting beam of the spatial light
modulators in Hornbeck would have achieved the same effect by
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
11
the use of deformable mirror devices. The use of the dichroic
mirrors in Ernstoff would have thus been an obvious
enhancement to the SLM/DMDs of Hornbeck to achieve the
conveyance of individual color beams to the viewer.
We are therefore convinced that despite the earlier noted
inadequacy with respect to the examiner’s reasoning of the
statement of the rejection, the art relied upon itself conveys
an analytical or substitutional linkage among the references
themselves in such a manner to arrive at the subject matter of
each of the claims on appeal. Stated differently, the
teachings of each reference relied upon by the examiner
obviously would have been combinable to the artisan to arrive
at the subject matter of the claimed invention of each claim
on appeal in the manner basically reasoned by the examiner
which has been embellished here. For example, as to claim 1,
the collective teachings of Collender, Ernstoff and Hornbeck
would have indicated the simultaneous generation of plural
beams of light, that is, plural color beams of light, to form
a planar image to the extent that Hirsch’s teachings may be
construed as presenting only a single beam of light for a
planar image. Both Hirsch and Collender teach the specific
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
12
electronic and mechanical controls which are necessary for
controlling the rotatability of the receiving screen for the
viewer to essentially "see" a 3-D depiction. Various light
receiving and transmitting means in the form of mirrors and
lenses including the dichroic mirrors of Ernstoff obviously
would have been employed to convey a single planar image from
plural image sources/beams. Taken in this light, therefore,
we do not agree with the positions advocated by appellants in
the initial portions of the argument section of the principal
Brief on appeal as to independent claim 1 on appeal.
As to the features in dependent claims we note the
following. As to claim 2 various circuits clearly control the
rotatability of the image projection apparatus in both Hirsch
and Collender. The beam intensity control features in
dependent claims 3 and 4 are met by the collective teachings
of Collender, Ernstoff and Hornbeck. As to the features in
dependent claims 5 to 8, they are obviously met by the
teachings in Hornbeck, which appellants’ own invention relies
upon as a basis for their invention disclosure. The
simultaneity feature of dependent claims 9 through 16 is
taught by Collender and Ernstoff with similar teachings
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
13
transferred to Hornbeck’s approach utilizing a different
structural device. The same may be said of the subject matter
of dependent claims 17 through 24, which in turn reflect in
part the subject matter of previous claims just discussed.
Finally, the dichroic filters in dependent claims 25 through
32 are met by the teachings of Ernstoff and Hornbeck as
discussed earlier.
As thus amplified in this opinion, the examiner’s
position does not appear to us to be based on hindsight or
contrived from the reading of the subject matter of the
disclosed and claimed invention. It appears also that the
DMDs of Hornbeck are a structural analogue to the dichroic
mirrors of Ernstoff since each pixel 20 of Fig. 1A of Hornbeck
may deflect the beam 30 along hinges 34 and 36 as shown in
Fig. 2 of Hornbeck for a particular color representation to
the viewer. Appellants repeated reference to the book by Sze
relating to CCD devices is misplaced since it represents an
incomplete consideration of the teaching value of Collender
which does not merely teach CCD devices alone but CCDLCLV
devices combined from CCD devices and LCLV devices.
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
14
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 96-1445
Application 08/371,684
15
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )

sd
Jerry W. Mills
Baker & Botts, LLP
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201