Ex Parte Cameron

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2010

10415956 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte COLIN D. CAMERON
____________

Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 4, 2005), the Answer
(Supplemental, mailed January 8, 2009), the Reply Brief (filed August 1,
2006), and the Supplemental Reply Brief (filed February 17, 2009) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
which 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)(vii).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to the production of an interference
based computer generated hologram (CGH) in which pixels in a CGH design
plane and/or object points on a virtual 3D are grouped together. The total
electric field at each CGH pixel in a group is calculated by determining
amplitude and occlusion information for one pixel or one object point of
each group. (See generally Spec. 2:20-3:23).

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for producing an interference based computer
generated hologram (CGH) comprising the steps of,
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

3
i) defining an object to be displayed by defining a plurality of
object points;
ii) defining a plurality of CGH pixels in a CGH design plane and a
plurality of macro processing grid (MPG) cells, each cell comprising a
plurality of CGH pixels, the MPG cells notionally dividing the CGH design
plane into a plurality of regions;
iii) determining a single total amplitude of light from at least one
CGH pixel contributed by all non-occluded object points within an MPG
cell;
iv) determining an optical path-length between each CGH pixel
within the MPG cell and each non-occluded object point;
v) calculating a total electric field at each CGH pixel within the
MPG cell from the amplitude and occlusion information of step iii), and the
optical path-length information of step iv);
vi) repeating steps iii) through iv) for each MPG cell; and
vii) determining a CGH interference pattern from the total electric
field calculated for each CGH pixel, and a simulated reference beam.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Haines US 5,194,971 Mar. 16, 1993
Sato US 5,739,930 Apr. 14, 1998

Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based on an inadequate disclosure.
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

4
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haines.
Claims 2, 6, 13, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Haines in view of Sato.

ISSUES

(i) Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, with respect to appealed
claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18, would the ordinarily skilled artisan have
found in Appellant’s Specification and drawings an enabling disclosure of
the claimed invention in accordance with the “enablement” requirement of
the statute?
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, with respect to
appealed claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18, would the ordinarily skilled
artisan, upon reading the claims in light of the Specification, have been able
to ascertain the scope of the invention recited in the claims?
(iii) Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1, 4,
5, 7-10, 12, 16, and 17, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention have found the claimed invention unpatentable over the
teachings of Haines alone?
(iv) Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 2, 6,
13, 14, and 18, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

5
invention have found it obvious to modify Haines by adding the teachings of
Sato to render the claimed invention unpatentable?

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH, REJECTION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of appealed claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18 based on the
“enabling” clause of the statute. The Examiner has initially taken the
position that Appellant’s specification lacks an enabling disclosure for
obtaining the “occlusion” information set forth in steps iii) and v) of each of
independent claims 1 and 7. According to the Examiner (Ans. 7, 8, 20, and
21), if “occlusion” information is simply a determination as to whether an
object point is viewable from the angle of a viewer, as argued by Appellant,
then such “occlusion” information is not sufficient to enable a determination
of the total electric field at each CGH pixel as claimed.
We do not agree with the Examiner. As argued by Appellant (App.
Br. 18; Reply Br. 5-6), obtaining occlusion information, which can be the
presence or absence of occlusion, can indeed be simply a determination as to
whether a surface can be viewed, i.e., whether the view is “occluded” by the
object itself. Contrary to the Examiner’s contention, however, such
“occlusion” information is not used in isolation to determine pixel electric
field values. As set forth in each of independent claims 1 and 7, the
“occlusion” information is used in conjunction with amplitude and optical
path-length information to determine the total electric field at each CGH
pixel.
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

6
We also do not agree with the Examiner that Appellant has no
enabling disclosure for calculating a total electric field at each CGH pixel by
using a single total amplitude of light falling on at least one CGH pixel that
is contributed by all non-occluded object points. According to the Examiner
(Ans. 8-10 and 21), it is impossible to calculate the total electric field at each
CGH pixel by separating and singling out the calculation of the total
amplitude from all of the non-occluded object points to determine only a
single total amplitude from all of the object points.
It is apparent from the analysis in the Answer, however, that the
Examiner has confused the claimed “object points” with the CGH pixels in
the CGH design plane. As described at pages 6-8 of Appellant’s
Specification and illustrated in Figure 4 of the drawings, the “object points”
are points located on the virtual 3-D object 19 and not in the CGH design
plane. As further described in this portion of Appellant’s Specification, the
total electric field determination is made by performing calculations for only
one pixel within a Macro Processing Grid (MPG) cell and/or a specific
object point of each object point cluster (OPC) on the virtual 3-D object 19.

35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH, REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, and 12-14
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10, 11, and 22) that the language
of independent claim 1 creates confusion with respect to the relationship of
the claimed CGH pixels and the object points. This confusion is particularly
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

7
evident from the language used in the recitation of step iii) of claim 1 which
recites determining a single total amplitude of light “from at least one CGH
pixel….” It is unclear from this language whether the light is emanating
from the CGH pixel, is received by the CGH pixel, or simply that the CGH
pixel is used to determine the amplitude of light contributed by non-
occluded object points.
Further, the language “object points within an MPG cell” is confusing
as to its intended meaning as it is unclear whether the object points have a
corresponding relationship to the pixels in the MPG cell. If the language is
intended to mean that the objects points are actually located within the MPG
cell, such an interpretation would be at odds with what is described in
Appellant’s Specification, which discloses the object points as being located
on the virtual 3-D object.
Accordingly, since we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have found it impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claims,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as claims 2, 4-7, 10, and 12-14 dependent thereon, is
sustained.

Claims 7, 8, and 16-18
We do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
independent claim 7 and its dependent claims 8 and 16-18. Unlike the
ambiguity created particularly by the language of step iii) of claim 1, we
agree with Appellant (App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 8-9) that an ordinarily skilled
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

8
artisan would understand the language of step iii) of claim 7 to mean that a
determination is made of a single total amplitude of light emanating from at
least one non-occluded object point and, further, that this object point is
located within an object point cluster (OPC) on the virtual 3-D object.

Claim 9
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
dependent claim 9. Contrary to the Examiner’s contention (Ans. 12, 22, and
23), we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan, having considered the
Specification in its entirety, would have no difficulty ascertaining the scope
of the invention recited in claim 9. In particular, the intended meaning of
the terminology “representation of the object” and “plane facets” is clear
from Appellant’s description in the Specification. As argued by Appellant
(App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 10-11; Supplemental Reply Brief 3), pages 7 and
8 of the Specification describe the generation of an optical representation of
an object shape in the form of a projection from a GCH pixel design plane.
Further, the Specification (7:23-31) discloses the formation of object point
clusters (OPCs) by grouping object points into primitive shapes by using
plane facets as illustrated in Figure 4 of the drawings.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, and 12-14
In view of our affirmance supra of the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 2 4-6, 10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for
indefiniteness, we are hereby reversing the Examiner’s prior-art rejections of
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

9
these claims. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing
§ 103 rejection because based on considerable speculation as to meaning of
terms of claims and assumptions as to their scope). We will not speculate as
to the scope of the appealed claims and therefore cannot determine whether
the combination of the references teaches the claimed features. It should be
understood, however, that our decision in this regard is based solely on the
indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter and does not reflect on the
adequacy of the prior art evidence applied in support of the rejections.

Claims 7-9, 16 and 17
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on Haines, of
independent claim 7, as well as dependent claims 8, 9, 16, and 17, which are
not separately argued by Appellant. In addressing the requirements of
independent claim 7, the Examiner (Ans. 13, 14, 23, and 24) directs attention
to Figure 4 of Haines as well as the accompanying description at column 7,
lines 28-54. This portion of Haines discloses defining a plurality of object
points 20 and 40 from object 30 and a plurality of pixel elements 220 and
240 of grid element 52 on design plane 50. An amplitude processor
determines the amplitude of the light ray falling on each pixel element that is
contributed, as claimed, by “at least one non-occluded object point” on the
object 30. If light rays from multiple object points strike a particular pixel
element, the amplitude contributions from each of the object points are
averaged.
With the above discussion of Haines’s disclosure of amplitude
processing, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated that the total electric
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

10
field at each pixel would be calculated from the determined amplitude,
occlusion and optical path length information.2 Haines also discloses the
determination of an interference fringe pattern from the electric field
calculations and a simulated reference beam. (Haines, col. ll. 30-40).
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 24), which initially focus on the
Examiner’s alleged admission that Haines “does not explicitly teach that the
occlusion and amplitude information for a CGH pixel element can be used
for two or more CGH pixel elements or for a group of CGH pixel elements
within a macro-processing grid cell,” are not persuasive. We simply do not
find the feature described in the quoted language in appealed independent
claim 7.
Appellant’s further argument (App. Br. 24-25; Reply Br. 11-13) that
Haines does not disclose the determination of a single total amplitude of
light contributed by at least one non-occluded object point within an OPC
(object point cluster) is equally unpersuasive. As discussed above, Haines
does disclose the determination of a single total amplitude of light striking
each pixel element that is contributed by an object point of an object. Even
in the situation in which light rays from multiple object points are striking
each pixel and an average amplitude value is obtained in Haines by
averaging the amplitude contribution from the multiple object points, such
average amplitude value is nonetheless a single total amplitude value as
claimed. (Haines, col. 7, ll. 28-54). To the extent Appellant is suggesting
that claim 7 requires using the determined total amplitude of light from one

2 Appellant admits (Reply Br. 12) that it is conventional to use optical path
length calculated for each pixel in determining the total electric field at each
pixel.
Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

11
object point in the OPC to represent the amplitude of light received from
each object point in the OPC, we disagree. The claim language is broad
enough to read on separately determining the total amplitude of light from
each object point in the OPC.

Dependent claim 18
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 18 in which the Examiner has added Sato to Haines to address the
spatial light modulator feature of this claim. Appellant has made no separate
arguments for the patentability of claim 18 but, instead, has relied upon
arguments made with respect to independent claim 7, which arguments we
have found to be unpersuasive.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18 as having
an inadequate disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. With
respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18 as being
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, and 12-14, but did err
in rejecting claims 7-9 and 16-18. With respect to the obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4- 6, 10, and 12-
14, but did not err in rejecting claims 7-9 and 16-18.

Appeal 2009-009858
Application 10/415,956

12
DECISION
Since we have sustained at least one rejection of all of the appealed
claims, the Examiner’s decision rejecting appealed claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14,
and 16-18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2009).

AFFIRMED

ke

Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP
621 SW Morrison St
Suite 600
Portland OR 97205