11112640 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2013)

Ex Parte Dahlgren

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 3, 2013

11112640 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRETT E. DAHLGREN ____________ Appeal 2011-002581 Application 11/112,640 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002581 Application 11/112,640 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-11, 16-26, 28-30, 32, and 33.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellant’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: Figure 1 is a schematic side view of one embodiment of a display device. Appellant’s Figure 1 and claimed invention are directed to a viewing cone adjustment system with a projection lens system 20 that defines a projection lens optical axis 20a that is adjustably offset from a viewing 1 Claims 27 and 31 stand objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (Ans. 3, 11). Claims 12-15 were previously canceled. Appeal 2011-002581 Application 11/112,640 3 screen optical axis 52. Spec. 3:10-19. The viewing cone adjustment system also includes an image source device (modulator) 18 that defines an image source optical axis 32 that is adjustably offset from the projection lens optical axis. Spec. 3:22-30. Adjustment of the viewing cone is accomplished by moving both the projection lens system 20 and the image source device 18. Spec. 3:10-3l. The movement of the projection lens system 20 with respect to an optical axis 52 of a display screen 22 results in movement of a viewing cone 62 projected from display screen 22. Spec. 3:10-12. To keep the image centered on the display screen, image source device 18 is moved with respect to the projection lens system 20 such that optical axis 32 of image source device 18 is unaligned with optical axis 20a of the projection lens system 20 and offset by a distance 60b. Spec.3:22-27. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A viewing cone adjustment system, comprising: a projection lens that defines a projection lens optical axis adjustably offset from a viewing screen optical axis; and an image source device that defines an image source optical axis adjustably offset from said projection lens optical axis. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 16-26, 28-30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Iizuka (US 6,113,240, Sep. 5, 2000). Ans. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iizuka. Ans. 6. Appeal 2011-002581 Application 11/112,640 4 ISSUE The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding Iizuka teaches “an image source device that defines an image source optical axis adjustably offset from said projection lens optical axis,” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellant argues Iizuka does not teach “an image source device that defines an image source optical axis adjustably offset from said projection lens optical axis,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3-4). The Examiner relies upon Figure 3 of Iizuka, reproduced below, to teach the disputed limitation: Figure 3 shows the optical system of the embodiment when the projected image is shifted along an X-axis direction. Appeal 2011-002581 Application 11/112,640 5 The Examiner finds Iizuka’s light source 2a, element 3, and condenser lens 4 correspond to the claimed image source device, and the optical axis defined by element 3 and condenser lens 4 corresponds to the claimed image source optical axis. Ans. 4, 9. The Examiner also finds the optical axis defined by element 3 and condenser lens 4 is “clearly” adjustably offset from the optical axis of projection lens 6. Id. In response, Appellant argues, inter alia, that the optical axis defined by element 3 and condenser lens 4 does not correspond to the claimed adjustably offset image source optical axis. Reply Br. 2-4. Appellant specifically contends that: [T]he Examiner has arbitrarily combined light source 2, modulating element 3 and condenser lens 4 to create a composite image source device that is not disclosed as such by the cited reference . . . . The composite image source device posited by the Examiner includes no less than three distinct optical axes. . . . The position of modulating element 3 is not disclosed as being adjustable or otherwise changeable. . . . Thus, Iizuka does not disclose that its third optical axis (i.e, the axis of light reflected from modulating element 3) of the composite image source device is in any way adjustably offset. . . . Accordingly, the Appellants note that the optical axis of the modulating element is not disclosed by Iizuka as being in any way adjustable. Reply Br. 1-3. (Emphasis added). Appellant’s contentions on pages 2 to 4 of the Reply Brief are persuasive. The Examiner has not shown (Ans. 8-9), nor do we find, that Figures 1 and 3 of Iizuka disclose the image source optical axis is adjustably offset from from the optical axis of the projection lens, as required by the Appeal 2011-002581 Application 11/112,640 6 claim. Specifically, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown where the optical axis of the projection lens is located nor has the Examiner shown the image source optical axis is adjustable in relation to that axis. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and independent claims 11, 23, 26, and 28, which recite commensurate limitations. Since we have reversed each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the rejection of each associated dependent claim. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding Iizuka teaches “an image source device that defines an image source optical axis adjustably offset from said projection lens optical axis,” as recited in claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 16-26, 28-30, 32, and 33 is reversed. REVERSED msc