Ex Parte DELL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

14188821 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

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