Ex Parte Chung

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 3, 2008

11210106 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 3, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHUL CHUNG
____________

Appeal 2008-1151
Application 11/210,106
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: September 3, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY
and KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 12 and 17 to 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the rejections.
Appellant has invented a system and a method of aligning a viewing
screen with a projection display device. The alignment system and method
use an emitter that emits a medium, and an indicator that indicates that the
Appeal 2008-1151
Application 11/210,106

2
projection display device is aligned with the viewing screen in response to
the medium from the emitter (Figure 1; Spec. 2 and 7).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A projection display device alignment system, comprising:
a viewing screen;
a projection display device displaying video on the viewing screen;
and
an emitter emitting a medium,
wherein an indicator indicates that the projection display device is
aligned with the viewing screen in response to the medium from the emitter.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Raskar US 6,520,647 B2 Feb. 18, 2003
Wood US 6,877,863 B2 Apr. 12, 2005
(filed Jun. 12, 2002)
Leung US 2006/0090083 A1 Apr. 27, 2006
(filed Oct. 27, 2004)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 4 to 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
based upon the teachings of Wood.
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Wood and Leung.
The Examiner rejected claims 17 to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Wood and Raskar.

Appeal 2008-1151
Application 11/210,106

3
ISSUES
Appellant contends that the applied reference to Wood does not teach
or suggest an emitter and an indicator that indicates that the projection
display device is aligned with the viewing screen in response to the medium
from the emitter (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5). Thus, the issue before us is
whether or not the applied reference to Wood describes an alignment system
that includes an emitter and an indicator that indicates that the projection
display device is aligned with the viewing screen in response to the medium
from the emitter as set forth in the claims on appeal?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As indicated supra, Appellant describes and claims a projection
display device alignment system and method that uses an emitter and an
indicator that is responsive to a medium from the emitter.
2. Wood describes a projection display device that includes a viewing
screen 7, a projection display device 10 that displays video on the viewing
screen, and an emitter in the form of an IR transmitter that emits infrared
radiation to an IR receiver in communication with microcontroller unit
(MCU) 24 (Figures 7 and 8; col. 4, ll. 55 to 62; col. 7, ll. 25 to 39).
3. The MCU 24 in Wood uses the IR input information as a new
horizontal zero reference which is used in keystone correction of the image
projected by the projection device (col. 7, ll. 35 to 49).
4. Leung was cited by the Examiner for a teaching that “a
communication channel between two electronic devices may equivalently be
Appeal 2008-1151
Application 11/210,106

4
an IR light, Bluetooth, radio frequency (RF) wave, laser and microwave.
(See Leung, paragraph 0028, lines 1-5)” (Ans. 5).
5. According to the Examiner, “an image capture device (Raskar, Fig.
4, ref.#203) for capture in image of the viewing screen (Raskar, Fig. 4,
ref.#101), and an adjuster (Fig. 4, ref#210; column 3, lines 23-40) that adjust
(i.e., warps) a position of the video displayed on the viewing screen along a
horizontal axis and a vertical axis is routine in the art as is evident from the
teaching of Raskar” (Ans. 5 and 6).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Obviousness
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness, and the Appellant has the burden of presenting a rebuttal to
the prima facie case. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Appeal 2008-1151
Application 11/210,106

5
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
As indicated supra, Appellant contends that Wood does not describe
an emitter and an indicator that indicates that the projection display device is
aligned with the viewing screen in response to the medium from the emitter.
Since infrared signals are transmitted and received via line of sight, the IR
port located at the projection display device 10 in Wood requires alignment
with the IR transmitter at the viewing screen 7 (Finding of Fact 2). Thus, we
disagree with Appellant’s contention because the IR port at the projection
display device 10 in Wood has to be aligned with the IR transmitter at the
viewing screen 7 to receive the IR signal transmitted by the IR transmitter.
The infrared signal received by the IR port at the projection display device
10 is sent to the MCU 24 in Wood as a new horizontal zero reference for use
in keystone correction of the image projected by the projection display
device (Finding of Fact 3). The keystone correction of the image aids in the
further alignment of the projected image onto the viewing screen 7.
In summary, all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 are found in the
teachings of Wood.
Obviousness
Turning to the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, and 17 to 23, we
find that the Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments
directed to the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

Appeal 2008-1151
Application 11/210,106

6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation of the claimed subject matter set forth in claims 1 and 9
has been established by the Examiner because Wood discloses each and
every limitation set forth in these claims. In the absence of patentability
arguments by the Appellant for claims 4 to 8 and 10 to 12, we find that the
Examiner has likewise established the anticipation of claims 4 to 8 and 10 to
12 by the teachings of Wood.
Obviousness of the claimed subject matter set forth in claims 2, 3, and
17 to 23 has been established by the Examiner in the absence of a response
directed to the rejections of these claims.

ORDER
The anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 4 to 12 is affirmed, and the
obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, and 17 to 23 are 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

H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, P.L.C.
8500 LEESBURG PIKE
SUITE 7500
VIENNA, VA 22182