Ex Parte Baier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12812966 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
12/812,966 07/15/2010 Markus Baier P44508US 2590
83956 7590 03/02/2017
Viering, Jentschura & Partner mbB - OSR
c/o
3770 Highland Ave.
Suite 203
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
EXAMINER
HOWARD, RYAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
patint@vjp.de
vjp-us@vjp.de
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKUS BAIER, MARTIN BRUECKEL, and
ANDREAS HUBER
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and DEBRA L. DENNETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5.
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action appealed from, mailed
May 8, 2014 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action mailed July 31, 2014
(“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief dated February 9, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief dated August 6, 2015 (“Ans.”); and
the Appellants’ Reply Brief dated October 5, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify “Osram Gesellschaft mit Beschraenkter Haftung” as
the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ disclosure relates to a video projection system comprising
(1) a light source, which is caused to emit light with a temporally variable
intensity by an operating device during operation; and (2) a light modulator,
which is caused to apply image information to the light emerging from the
light source by a controller during operation. Amended Abstract; Spec. 2, 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.
1. A video projection system comprising:
a light source, which is caused to emit light with a variable
intensity by an operating device during operation; and
a light modulator which is caused to apply image
information to the light emerging from the light source by a
controller during operation, the operating device being coupled
to the controller in order to enable them both to be
synchronized by synchronization signals in a way that the light
acquires a higher intensity in the case of a first color than in the
case of another color, wherein the operating device is designed
to transmit the synchronization signals to the controller.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
16):
The References
Marshall et al.,
(hereinafter “Marshall”)
Jayaram et al.,
(hereinafter “Jayaram”)
US 5,706,061
US 7,377,658 B2 May 27, 2008
Jan. 6, 1998
Munters et al.,
(hereinafter “Munters”)
De Vaan US 7,891,822 B2 Feb. 22,2011
US 2010/0164383 Al July 1, 2010
2
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Munters in view of Marshall.
Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Munters in view of Marshall, as applied to claim 2 above,
and further in view of De Vaan. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Munters in view of Marshall, as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of Jayaram. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellants in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and
Final Office Action appealed from, which we adopt as our own.
Nevertheless, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Rejection 1
Initially, we note that Appellants argue claims 1,2, and 5 as a group.
App. Br. 7. We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative and claims 2 and
5 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Munters and Marshall
would have suggested a video projection system satisfying all of limitations
of claim 1 and concludes that the combination would have rendered claim 1
3
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
obvious. Final Act. 2, 3; Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that Munters teaches
or suggests the majority of claim 1 ’s structures, but that it does not teach that
“the light acquires a higher intensity in the case of a first color than in the
case of another color,” as required by the claim. Final Act. 3 (citing
Munters, Fig. 1, || 39, 60, 61). The Examiner, however, relies on Marshall
for teaching this missing limitation. Id. at 3 (citing Marshall, Fig. 4).
In particular, the Examiner finds that Marshall teaches the light
acquires a higher intensity (“LAMP OUTPUT” element 106 in Fig. 4) in the
case of a first color (“RED” in Fig. 4) than in the case of another color
(“GREEN” and “BLUE” in Fig. 4).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to modify the projection system of Munters to operate with the
lamp driving method of Marshall because the lamp driving method of
Marshall improves color balance in the projection system. Final Act. 3
(citing Marshall, col. 3,11. 26—34).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because
Munters does not disclose that the dimming of the light output
is related to color synchronization by a synchronization signal
or synchronization by synchronization signals in a way that the
light acquires a higher intensity in the case of a first color than
in the case of another color.
App. Br. 12. Appellants also argue, more broadly, that Munters does not
disclose a “synchronization signal,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 12; see also
Reply Br. 2, 3.
Appellants further argue that a person of ordinary skill would not have
combined Munters and Marshall to arrive at the claimed invention and, in
4
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
any event, the combination of Munters and Marshall does not disclose the
“wherein the operating device is designed to transmit the synchronization
signals to the controller” limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 13, 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. On the record
before us, we find that a preponderance of the evidence and sound technical
reasoning support the Examiner’s analysis and determination that the
combination of Munters and Marshall suggests all of the limitations of claim
1 and would have rendered the claim obvious. Munters, Fig. 1, || 39, 60,
61; Marshall, Fig. 4, col. 3,11. 26—34.
We also find that the Examiner provides a reasoned basis and
identifies sufficient evidence in the record to evince why one of ordinary
skill would have combined the teachings of Munters and Marshall to arrive
at Appellants’ claimed invention. Final Act. 3 (explaining that one of
ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Munters’ projection system
to operate with Marshall’s lamp driving method because the lamp driving
method of Marshall improves color balance in the projection system);
Marshall, col. 3,11. 26—34.
Appellants fail to direct us to sufficient evidence or provide an
adequate technical explanation to establish why the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning for combining the teachings of the cited references to arrive at the
claimed invention lacks a rational underpinning or is otherwise based on
some other reversible error.
Appellants’ argument regarding Munters not disclosing dimming of
the light output and synchronization signals in a way that the light acquires a
higher intensity in the case of a first color than in the case of another color
(App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3, 4) is not persuasive because Appellants attack the
5
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
references individually rather than the collective teachings of the prior art as
a whole. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants’ argument is
premised on what Appellants contend Munters teaches individually, and not
the combined teachings of the cited references as a whole and what the
combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Contrary to what Appellants argue, the Examiner relies on the
combined teachings of Munters and Marshall—and not Munters alone—for
suggesting the light output and synchronization signal elements of claim 1.
See Final Act. 2, 3; see also Ans. 2. In particular, as the Examiner finds
(Final Act. 2), Munters teaches a light source (lamp 1) which is caused to
emit light with a variable intensity by an operating device (driving
arrangement 70) and a light modulator (display unit 14) which is caused to
apply image information to the light emerging from the light source by a
controller (video control unit 124) during operation. Munters, Fig. 1,139.
As the Examiner further finds (Final Act. 2, 3), Munters teaches that “the
video control unit 124 manages the synchronisation of the colour wheel 12
and display unit 14” and “a suitable signal 125 from the driving arrangement
70 informs the video control unit 124 of the extent to which any other
dimmable components of the projector system 10 ... are to be deployed.”
Munters 139. Munters also teaches that components of display unit 14 are
arranged in a way that the projection area can be used as a “dimmable
component to darken or dim an image being projected.” Id. at 137.
As the Examiner also finds (Final Act. 3), Marshall teaches that the
light acquires a higher intensity in the case of a first color than in the case of
6
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
another color. Marshall, Fig. 4, col. 5,11. 10-18. Appellants’ argument
reveals no reversible error in the Examiner’s analysis and factual findings in
this regard.
Appellants’ argument that Munters does not disclose synchronization
signals (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive for the well-stated
reasons provided by the Examiner at pages 2 and 3 of the Answer and pages
2 and 3 of the Final Office Action. In particular, on the record before us, we
find that a preponderance of the evidence and sound technical reasoning
support the Examiner’s finding that Munters does disclose “synchronization
signals,” as claimed. Munters Tflf 37, 39, 60, 61, 62, Fig. 1.
As the Examiner correctly points out, Munters explicitly teaches that
the controller 124 manages the synchronization of the light modulator 14;
the signal 125 from operating device 70 informs the controller 124 of the
extent to which any other dimmable components are to be deployed; and
“when the lamp power is suddenly increased, the dimmable components can
be un-dimmed to provide more brightness, while the lamp 1 itself is first
driven for the recovery period according to the recovery parameter.”
Munters 39, 62. Moreover, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 3), the lamp
power is altered for a duration of time, during which, other dimmable
components need to be employed to alter brightness and this function would
need to occur in synchronization with the lamp in order to ensure that the
dimmable components are employed in the appropriate lamp cycles.
Munters | 62.
Appellants’ assertions that Munters does not disclose “controlling the
timing” and “merely indicates a level” (App. Br. 13) are conclusory and,
without more, insufficient to rebut or otherwise establish reversible error in
7
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
the Examiner’s findings and analysis in this regard. In re De Blauwe, 736
F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants’ arguments that the combination of Munters and Marshall
does not disclose claim l’s “wherein the operating device is designed to
transmit the synchronization signals to the controller” limitation and that a
person of ordinary skill would not have combined Munters and Marshall
(App. Br. 13) are not persuasive because Appellants do not direct us to
sufficient evidence in the record or provide an adequate technical
explanation to support them. See De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705.
In any event, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 3) and contrary to
what Appellants argue, the combination of Munters and Marshall does
suggest the “wherein the operating device is designed to transmit the
synchronization signals to the controller” limitation of claim 1. Munters |
39, Fig. 1 (depicting signals 125 transmitting between operating device 70
and controller 124 and vice versa).
Moreover, as previously discussed above, we are persuaded that the
Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Munters and Marshall, and
stated rationale for why one of ordinary skill would have combined the
teachings of these references to arrive at Appellants’ claimed invention are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence and based upon sound
technical reasoning.
Appellants’ disagreement with the Examiner’s reason for combining
the references, without more, is insufficient to establish reversible error.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (explaining that any
need or problem known in the art can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed).
8
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Munters
and Marshall.
Rejections 2 and 3
Appellants do not present any additional substantive arguments in the
appeal briefing for the patentability of claims 3 and 4. Rather, Appellants
contend that “De Vaan and Jayaram . . . fail to cure the deficiencies found in
Munters and Marshall” and, as a result, that the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 3 and 4 “be withdrawn.” App. Br. 14.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions in this regard persuasive
because a naked assertion that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a claim’s
limitations is not an argument in support of separate patentability. Cf. In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for the same reasons discussed above for affirming
Rejection 1, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 3 as obvious over
the combination of Munters, Marshall, and De Vaan (Rejection 2, stated
above) and claim 4 as obvious over the combination of Munters, Marshall,
and Jayaram (Rejection 3, stated above).
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5 are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
9
Appeal 2016-000456
Application 12/812,966
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
10