11064317 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2010)

Ex Parte Childers

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 17, 2010

11064317 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte WINTHROP D. CHILDERS ____________ Appeal 2009-003938 Application 11/064,317 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: March 17, 2010 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims1-19 and 21-51.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 1-19 and 21-51 are subject to this Appeal (see Notice of Appeal filed March 27, 2008; App. Br. 6). However, claims 2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 21-23, 25, 27-31, 33, 34, 36-42,44-47, 49, and 50 were not separately addressed or argued in the Appeal Brief. Thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claim. Appeal 2009-003938 Application 11/064,317 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is an apparatus as described in independent claim 1, reproduced below, which is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus, comprising: a light engine to project colored spots of light onto elements of a surface, wherein the colored spots of light have a first resolution; and a processing unit configured to cause the elements to change states at a second resolution higher than the first resolution. REFERENCES Raskar US 2002/0021418 A1 Feb. 21, 2002 Whitehead US 2005/0162737 A1 Jul. 28, 2005 George US 2005/0225684 A1 Oct. 13, 2005 Tan US 7,108,379 B2 Sep. 19, 2006 The Examiner rejected claims1-9, 14, 17-19, 21-23, 25-31, and 37-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Whitehead. The Examiner rejected claims 10-13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Whitehead and Tan. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Whitehead and Raskar. The Examiner rejected claims 32-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Whitehead and George. Appellant contends Whitehead does not teach “colored spots of light” as that term is explicitly defined in Appellant’s Specification (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4). Appeal 2009-003938 Application 11/064,317 3 ISSUE Does Whitehead teach “colored spots of light” as claimed? PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., Inc., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). ANALYSIS Anticipation Appellant contends claims 1, 18, 26, 43, 48, and 51 are not anticipated by Whitehead. Appellant argues Whitehead does not teach projecting colored spots of light as claimed (App. Br. 15). Appellant further argues Whitehead uses different LEDs to provide a uniform white light illumination of a spatial light modulator rather than projecting colored spots of light (App. Br. 16). Appellant states Whitehead “expressly seeks to avoid defining color, or hue, in its projected light when using colored LEDs to produce that light” (Reply Br. 4). It appears Appellant has focused on one embodiment of Whitehead to the exclusion of the others. For example, Appellant asserts paragraph [0093] of Whitehead states “[i]n one embodiment…each channel 123 has three Appeal 2009-003938 Application 11/064,317 4 LEDs of different color.” In Appellant’s view, this shows Whitehead provides white light (App. Br. 15; Reply 4). However, paragraph [0093] also states “[i]t is generally desirable to provide one channel 123 for each LED or other light source. In some embodiments of the invention each channel 123 has a plurality of LEDS” (emphasis added). Thus, Whitehead can have a single LED in each channel or a plurality of LEDs in each channel. If all three LEDs (red, green, and blue) in the channel are activated, then white light is produced. As recognized by the Examiner, this would only occur where the final image includes white pixels (Ans. 14). There is no teaching in Whitehead prohibiting turning on a single LED or two LEDs in the channel including three LEDs. As further recognized by the Examiner, for a surface modulator 20 to be monochrome, Whitehead’s light engine must project colored spots of light and not just uniform white light (Ans. 14-15). Appellant’s claims only require “colored spots of light,” and the human eye perceives a white spot of light as a “colored spot.” Additionally, Appellant’s Specification does not appear to support Appellant’s allegation that a colored spot of light is explicitly defined as “a spot of light that provides both hue and intensity” (App. Br. 17; Reply 4). Paragraph [0013] of Appellant’s Specification states “spots generally define the hue and intensity of the video images” (emphasis added). Appellant has not shown how this is different from the LED light of Whitehead. Thus, Appellant’s broad claim language reads on the LED light from Whitehead, whether from a single LED or a plurality of LEDs (Whitehead ¶ [0093]). For the above reasons, Whitehead anticipates claims 1, 18, 26, 43, 48, and 51. Appeal 2009-003938 Application 11/064,317 5 Obviousness Appellant contends claims 10, 15, 24, 32, and 35 are not obvious over various combinations of Whitehead with Tan, Raskar, or George. Appellant asserts these claims are not obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to Whitehead, and additionally, none of these references cures the deficiencies of Whitehead (App. Br. 22-23). Thus, for the reasons set forth above with respect to Whitehead, claims 10, 15, 24, and 32 are obvious over the various combinations of the cited references. CONCLUSION Whitehead teaches “colored spots of light” as claimed. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 and 21-51 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)(iv). AFFIRMED KIS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Intellectual Property Administration 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528