13885523 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2018)

Ex Parte Barcons-Palau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 22, 2018

13885523 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2018)

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. 13/885,523 05/15/2013 Jesus Barcons-Palau PU100220 9377 24498 7590 02/26/2018 Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 EXAMINER KHALID, OMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2018 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): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com russell. smith @ technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JESUS BARCONS-PALAU, JENS CAHNBLEY, and GAD MOSHE BERGER Appeal 2017-009087 Application 13/885,5231 Technology Center 2400 Before: ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants’ Brief (“Br.”) identifies Thomson Licensing as the real party in interest. Br. 3. No reply brief was filed. Appeal 2017-009087 Application 13/885,523 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for upgrading a two-dimensional projector to display three-dimensional content using a circular polarized filter with at least two polarized zones. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for displaying three-dimensional content from a projector, comprising: a circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones, wherein the circular polarized filter is rotatable in proximity of a projector lens; at least one light sensor disposed in front of the projector lens that provides a spatial control output signal and a temporal control output signal; and a processor for controlling a speed at which the circular polarized filter is rotated in response to an output signal of the at least one light sensor to place an appropriate one of the at least two polarized zones of the circular polarized filter in front of an applicable frame of a video sequence to obtain a polarization representative of the three-dimensional content. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: DeCusatis et al. Ellinger et al. Lee US 2007/0139769 Al June 21, 2007 US 2009/0190095 Al July 30, 2009 WO 2008/056929 Al May 15, 2008 2 Appeal 2017-009087 Application 13/885,523 REJECTIONS Claims 1—5, 7—14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by DeCusatis. Final Act. 2—10. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeCusatis and Lee. Final Act. 10-11. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeCusatis and Ellinger. Final Act. 11. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding DeCusatis discloses “a circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones,” as recited in each independent claim? ANALYSIS Each of Appellants’ independent claims recites “a circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones.” In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds DeCusatis discloses this limitation. Final Act. 2, 5. The Examiner cites the polarizing filter 306 shown in Figure 3 A of DeCusatis, explaining that “controlled such that when a left image is projected, the wheel will be in a position to polarize the image in a pre selected angle, and when a right eye image is projected the wheel is positioned to polarize the image at a different angle; i.e. the wheel comprises at least two zones.” Final Act. 5 (citing DeCusatis Tflf 67, 79) (emphasis omitted). Alternatively, the Examiner finds this limitation disclosed by the two circular polarized filter wheels shown in Figure 14C of DeCusatis. 3 Appeal 2017-009087 Application 13/885,523 Final Act. 2. The Examiner further explains that DeCusatis’ disclosure of filter wheels having “an arbitrary number of polarizing segments” discloses the recited “circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones.” Ans. 10-11 (citing DeCusatis 88—89) (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend the Examiner has erred because “DeCusatis teaches that an angle of the polarizing filter wheel is adjusted based on whether the input signal is left eye data or right eye data.” Br. 9. Appellants further argue the filter wheel in DeCusatis includes only a single polarized zone. According to Appellants, a “circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones” as recited in the claims “cannot correspond to a polarizing filter wheel with one polarized zone whose angle is adjusted based on the input data.” Br. 10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As noted above, the Examiner alternatively cites DeCusatis’ disclosure of filter wheels having “an arbitrary number of polarizing segments.” DeCusatis 1 89. Appellants’ arguments do not address this alternative finding. Rather, Appellants’ argument focus on DeCusatis’ description of the video input signal flflf 69- 72), but do not address the paragraphs cited by the Examiner (|| 88—89). As such, Appellants have not persuasively challenged the specific finding made by the Examiner, and consequently have not demonstrated error. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that DeCusatis’ “arbitrary number of polarizing segments” discloses the recited “at least two polarized zones” (see, e.g., Ans. 14) because the use of the word “segment” indicates that the polarized areas on the filter wheel are divided and distinct, which is another way of stating 4 Appeal 2017-009087 Application 13/885,523 that they are divided into “zones,” consistent with the Specification.2 See Spec. 5:20—23. DeCusatis’ description of the filter wheel confirms the Examiner’s explanation, as it states “[a] transparent wheel having selectively polarized sectors” can be used in the system. DeCusatis 190. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding DeCusatis’ discloses each and every limitation recited in the independent claims, and we sustain their rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Remaining Claims Appellants present no separate arguments for patentability of any of dependent claims 2—6, 8—11, 13, 15, and 16. Accordingly, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 2 A dictionary definition of “segment” is “each of the parts into which something is or may be divided.” Segment, New Oxford American Dictionary 3d. Ed. (2010). 5