Ex Parte CameronDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 20, 201010415956 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2010) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation