Ex Parte CHOI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 2003

09057585 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte SOON-CHEOL CHOI
__________
Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application 09/057,585
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO, and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 26, 28 and 29. Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten
in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims (final rejection, page 4).
Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
2
The disclosed invention relates to optics for a reflection-
type projector.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A reflection type projector comprising:
a light source for emitting an input light;
only one image forming unit having a plurality of pixels in
a two-dimensional array structure, each of the plurality of
pixels being independently driven, for forming and reflecting an
image from the input light;
a critical angle prism having a transmission/reflection
surface disposed along an optical path of the input light, the
transmission/reflection surface transmitting the input light from
the light source to the image forming unit, and reflecting light
that re-enters the critical angle prism from the image forming
unit; and
a projection lens unit for enlarging and transmitting the
light reflected from the transmission/reflection surface of the
critical angle prism.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
van den Brandt 4,969,730 Nov. 13, 1990
(van den Brandt ‘730)
van den Brandt et al. 5,098,184 Mar. 24, 1992
(van den Brandt ‘184)
Burstyn 5,309,188 May 3, 1994
Poradish et. (Poradish) 5,612,753 Mar. 18, 1997
Levis et al. (Levis) 5,829,858 Nov. 3, 1998
(filed Mar. 31, 1997)
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Burstyn.
Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
1Appellant and the examiner both recognize that claim 7
depends from claim 1, and, therefore, includes all of the
limitations of claim 1 (brief, page 7; answer, page 5).
2In view of appellant’s grouping of the claims (brief, page
4), claim 12 will be considered with claim 8.
3
Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Poradish.
Claims 82 through 10, 13 through 15, 18 through 20, 23, 28
and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Burstyn.
Claims 2, 11, 16, 17, 21 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burstyn in view of
van den Brandt ‘730.
Claims 3, 4, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burstyn in view of
van den Brandt ‘184.
Claims 3 through 6 and 24 through 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burstyn in view of
Levis.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 13),
the answer (paper number 18) and the briefs (paper numbers 17 and
20) for the respective positions of the examiner and the
appellant.
Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
4
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the anticipation rejections of claims 1 and
7, and the obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 6 and 28.
On the other hand, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of
claims 8 through 26 and 29.
Appellant argues (brief, page 7; reply brief, page 3) that
“all of the input light impinges upon only one image forming
unit” in claim 1, whereas “Burstyn teaches separating the input
light into three color components that respectively impinge upon
separate coupling prism assemblies 10 (i.e., three coupling prism
assemblies are required).” Appellant’s argument concerning “all”
of the input light is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Nothing in claim 1 indicates that “all” of the input light
impinges upon the “only one” image forming unit. More
importantly, nothing in claim 1 precludes “separating” the input
light into three color components. Notwithstanding the fact that
Burstyn’s optical assembly (Figure 1) for a reflector-type
projector may handle only a single color (brief, page 6), the
limitations of claim 1 still read on that portion of Burstyn’s
projector assembly. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 1 is sustained.
Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
5
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 through 6 and
28 is sustained because appellant has chosen (brief, page 4) to
let these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Turning next to the anticipation rejection of claim 7, the
examiner indicated (final rejection, page 1) that the limitations
of claim 7 read on either one of the two modulator systems 5a or
5b. We agree with the appellant’s argument (brief, page 8) that
a single light modulator will project less lumens to the screen,
but the examiner has correctly concluded that the limitations of
claim 7, which includes those of claim 1, read entirely on either
one of the two modulators 5a or 5b. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) rejection of claim 7 is sustained because “all” of the
light from either the light source 10a or 10b will impinge upon
“only one image forming unit” in modulator 5a or 5b (brief,
page 9).
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claim 8, the
examiner has reached the conclusion (answer, page 6) that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
omit wedge prism 16 from the optical structure of Burstyn
(Figure 1) since light will still travel in a straight line to
right angle prism 14 as a result of the straight-line travel of
light through the prism 16. Appellant argues (brief, pages 10
Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
6
through 12) that the wedge prism 16 is needed in Burstyn to force
the light to travel in a straight line through the two prisms,
and that the examiner has not provided any evidence to support
the theory that the wedge prism 16 is not needed in the structure
disclosed by Burstyn. We agree with appellant’s arguments.
Burstyn clearly discloses (column 2, line 49 through column 3,
line 4) that the geometry of the wedge prism 16 was chosen to
pass the beam of light along “substantially a straight line
. . . .” In the absence of evidence in the record that the
structure disclosed by Burstyn will still function without wedge
prism 16 to pass the same beam of light in a “substantially
straight line,” we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 8.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9 through 26 and
29 is likewise reversed because the teachings of van den Brandt
‘730, van den Brandt ‘184 and Levis fail to cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Burstyn.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), respectively, is
affirmed. The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2
through 6, 8 through 26, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
7
affirmed as to claims 2 through 6 and 28, and is reversed as to
claims 8 through 26 and 29. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:svt
Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
8
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, MacPeak & Seas, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-3213