Ex Parte DELL et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201814188821 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/188,821 02/25/2014 22045 7590 12/04/2018 Brooks Kushman 1000 Town Center 22nd Floor SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark L. DELL'EV A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. ABSI0111PUS3 2738 EXAMINER DABE!, JYOTSNA V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2872 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@brookskushman.com kdilucia@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK L. DELL'EVA and HANS INGMAR BJELKHAGEN 1 (Applicant: ABSOLUTE IMAGING LLC) Appeal2018-003529 Application 14/188,821 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Absolute Imaging LLC. Appeal2018-003529 Application 14/188,821 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 25--44. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 25 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 25. A system for making a holographic optical element for an autostereoscopic display, the system comprising: at least one coherent light source generating light of corresponding first, second, and third wavelengths; at least one beam combiner positioned to combine the first, second, and third wavelengths into a coherent recording beam; a non-polarizing beam splitter positioned to separate the recording beam into a reference beam and an object beam and that provides a reference beam to object beam ratio of about 1: 1; at least one element positioned in each of the reference beam path and object beam path to generate a diverging reference beam and a diverging object beam that illuminate the holographic optical element from opposite sides; a beam expander comprising a generally transparent elongated lens positioned in the object beam path between the beam splitter and the diffuser; a diffuser positioned in the object beam path generally parallel to the holographic optical element to illuminate a first side of the holographic optical element during recording; and a generally planar mirror positioned in the object beam path to reflect diverging object beam light onto the first side of the holographic optical element during recording. 2 Appeal2018-003529 Application 14/188,821 The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability pertinent to the rejections appealed in this case: Newswanger Hart Hattori Orr Bjelkhagen Destain Tsuchiya Leto us 4,799,739 us 5,796,500 us 6,011,580 us 6,157,474 US 2005/0157359 Al US 2007/0153397 Al US 2009/0153933 Al US 2010/0124158 Al THE REJECTI0NS 2 Jan.24, 1989 Aug. 18, 1998 Jan.4,2000 Dec. 5, 2000 July 21, 2005 July 5, 2007 June 18, 2009 May 20, 2010 1. Claim 25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Bjelkhagen in view of Leto. 2. Claim 36 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Bjelkhagen in view of Newswanger, and further in view of Tsuchiya. 3. Claim 43 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Bjelkhagen in view of Destain and Orr, and further in view of Hart and Hattori. 2 Appellants identify the claims on appeal as limited to independent claims 25, 26, and 43 (App. Br. 1), however, "[a]n appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by amendment and entered by the Office." 37 C.F.R. §41.3 l(c). Moreover, all pending claims subject to examination are reproduced in the Claims Appendix. The other rejections of record in the Final Office Action are not listed as being appealed and these other rejections are directed to the dependent claims. Our determination with regard to the rejections of the independent claims therefore are dispositive for the dependent claims. 3 Appeal2018-003529 Application 14/188,821 ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants' position. We thus reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 25- 44 for the reasons provided by Appellants in the record, and add the following for emphasis. Claim interpretation is dispositive in this case. It is not disputed that Bjelkhagen discloses illumination of the HOE (holographic optical element) during recording with a converging reference beam and not a diverging reference beam as disclosed and claimed by Appellants in independent claims 25, 36, and 43. It is the Examiner's position that Appellants' claimed limitations with respect to this feature are met by Bjelkhagen '359 because Appellants' claims do not require that the diverging object and reference beams "directly diverge onto the HOE." Ans. 2-3. However, we agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 4) that this claim interpretation is reversible error as the plain meaning of the claim is that the diverging reference beam and the diverging object beam illuminate the holographic optical element (HOE) from opposite sides, and such an interpretation is further supported by Figure 1 of the Specification. In view of the above, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 25--44 is reversed. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 25--44 is reversed. ORDER REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation