Ex Parte Engel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2014

10521413 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/521,413 07/19/2006 Gabriel Darmon Engel PURE-P007US 8949
41066 7590 04/30/2014
MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP
TWO NORTH MARKET STREET
THIRD FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
HICKS, CHARLES V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GABRIEL DARMON ENGEL and GARETH PAUL BELL
____________

Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413
1

Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
Application filed July 19, 2006 claiming benefit of PCT/NZ2003/000153
filed July 15, 2003. The real party in interest is Pure Depth Ltd.
Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 25-37 and 52-65. Claims 1-24
and 38-51 have been canceled. (Br. 3.)
2
We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns a display comprising
multiple overlapping screens having either different arrangements of sub-
pixels, or utilizing different technologies in order to reduce Moiré
interference. (Spec. 4:12–7:17; Abstract.)
Representative Claims
Independent claims 25 and 52, reproduced below with the key
disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrate the invention:
25. A multi-component display comprising:
a first display screen comprising a first plurality of
pixels, wherein said first display screen is operable to display a
first image using said first plurality of pixels, and wherein a
first pixel of said first plurality of pixels comprises a first
plurality of sub-pixels arranged in a first pattern; and
a second display screen comprising a second plurality of
pixels, wherein said second display screen is operable to display
a second image using said second plurality of pixels, wherein
said second display screen overlaps said first display screen,
wherein a second pixel of said second plurality of pixels

2
We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”)
filed March 10, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed May 25, 2011.
Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413

3

comprises a second plurality of sub-pixels arranged in a second
pattern, wherein said second pattern is different from said first
pattern, and wherein an overlap of said first plurality of sub-
pixels and said second plurality of sub-pixels is configured to
reduce Moiré interference.
52. A multi-component display comprising:
a first display screen comprising a first plurality of
pixels, wherein said first display screen is operable to display a
first image using said first plurality of pixels, and wherein said
first display screen utilizes a first display technology;
a second display screen comprising a second plurality of
pixels, wherein said second display screen is operable to
display a second image using said second plurality of pixels,
wherein said second display screen overlaps said first display
screen, wherein said second display screen utilizes a second
display technology, and wherein said second display
technology is different from said first display technology, and
wherein said overlap is configured to reduce Moiré
interference.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 25-33 and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,906,762 B1, issued
Jun. 14, 2005 (filed Jul. 10, 1998) (“Witehira”) and U.S. Patent No.
6,573,961 B2, issued Jun. 3, 2003 (“Jiang”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Witehira, Jiang, and U.S. Patent No. 7,072,095 B1,
issued Jul. 4, 2006 (filed Oct. 29, 2003 claiming benefit of 60/422,940 filed
Oct. 31, 2002) (“Liang”).
Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413

4

3. The Examiner rejects claims 52-60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Witehira and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
2002/0154102 A1, published Oct. 24, 2002 (“Huston”).
4. The Examiner rejects claim 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Witehira, Huston, and Liang.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 62 and 65 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Witehira, Huston, and Jiang.
6. The Examiner rejects claims 63 and 64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Witehira, Huston, Jiang and Liang.

ISSUES
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us follow:
1. Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Witehira and Jiang collectively would have taught or suggested “a first
plurality of sub-pixels arranged in a first pattern[ ] and . . . a second plurality
of sub-pixels arranged in a second pattern . . . different from said first pattern
. . . to reduce Moiré interference” as recited in Appellants’ claim 25?
2. Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Witehira and Huston collectively would have taught or suggested “a first
display screen” and “a second display screen . . . wherein said second
display screen utilizes a second display technology . . . to reduce Moiré
interference” as recited in Appellants’ claim 52.

Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413

5

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action mailed August 30, 2010, as our own, except as to those findings that
we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments (Br. 13-23), we select independent
claims 25 and 52 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and groupings
with respect to claims 25-37 and 52-65. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-19), and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 19-22) in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for emphasis.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 25-37
Appellants contend that Witehira and Jiang do not teach or suggest the
disputed features of claim 25. (Br. 13-16.) Specifically, Appellants contend
Jiang teaches
a single-layer LCD (as shown in Figures 2B and 2B1) utilizing
a two-layer color filter system (as shown in Figures 16A, 16B
and 16C) [and] . . . . [a]s such, even assuming arguendo that the
top and bottom layers . . . are considered to be analogous to
overlapping patterns of sub-pixels[,]. . . Jiang . . . teaches that
the two layers of color filters are included in the same display
screen instead of teaching overlapping patterns of sub-pixels
included in separate display screens as claimed.
(Br. 14.) Appellants further contend that “Witehira fails to teach or suggest
the elements of ‘wherein an overlap of said first plurality of sub-pixels and
Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413

6

said second plurality of sub-pixels is configured to reduce Moiré
interference’ as recited in independent Claim 25.” (Br. 15.)
As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 20), it appears that Appellants
fail to appreciate the teachings of the combination of references.
Appellants’ argument does not take into account what the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art – “The test for obviousness
is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (citations omitted).
Witehira describes a multilayer display with two separate screens
(Fig. 4 (elements 1 and 3); col. 4, ll. 50-52; see Ans. 4-5, 20-21) and
reducing Moiré interference using a diffusion (diffuse) layer (13) (Fig. 4
(element 13); col. 3, ll. 22-24; col. 5, ll. 7-12; see Ans. 6, 21) or “a stripe
pixel pattern on one screen and a 45 degree diagonal pixel pattern on
another” (col. 5, ll. 13-15) – which we find would have at least suggested
sub-pixels of different screens/layers having different patterns.
Jiang describes a two-layer color filter system with each layer having
a different sub-pixel pattern. (Jiang, Figs. 16A-D; col. 49, ll. 7-22; see Ans.
5-6, 20-21.) Thus, we conclude that the combination of Witehira and Jiang
teaches utilizing different sub-pixel patterns for each layer or screen in a
multi-layer (multi-screen) display to reduce Moiré interference.
Further, Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief rebutting the findings
and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Thus, for
Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413

7

all the reasons supra, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 25.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 25 and claims 26-33 and 37 not separately argued with
particularity (Br. 16).
With respect to claims 34-36, rejected over the combination of
Witehira, Jiang, and Liang (Ans. 9-11), Appellants do not separately argue
either the rejection, or claims 34-36 with particularity (Br. 17). Instead,
Appellants merely reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 25
(supra). (Id.) Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 34-36 for the same reasons as claim 25 (supra).
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 52-65
Appellants contend that Witehira and Huston do not teach or suggest
the disputed features of claim 52. (Br. 18-20.) Specifically, Appellants
contend Huston teaches
a display controller which can output data to at least one display
module (paragraph 19). For example, a graphics card may have
dual outputs for connecting two monitors which are placed
side-by-side at a workstation. However, enabling output to
multiple display modules as taught by Huston is very different
from a multi-component display with overlapping display
screens utilizing different display technologies as claimed.
(Br. 19.) Appellants further contend that “Witehira fails to teach or suggest
the elements of ‘wherein said overlap is configured to reduce Moiré
interference’ as recited in independent Claim 52.” (Br. 19.)
As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 20), Appellants again attempt
to attack the references individually and these arguments are unpersuasive of
Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413

8

Examiner error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Further, as we explain
supra, Witehira describes a multilayer display with two separate screens, as
well as reducing Moiré interference.
Huston describes a display controller that drives different types
(technologies) of displays (display modules) “such as a CRT, LCD screen,
[or] OLED display” (Huston, ¶ [0019]; see Ans. 12-13). Huston further
describes the display controller as driving multiple display modules.
(Huston, ¶ [0021]; see Ans. 22.) Thus, we find that Huston would have at
least suggested driving two displays having different technologies. And, it
follows that the combination of Witehira and Huston would have taught or
suggested a multi-layer display with each screen having a different
technology in order to reduce Moiré interference.
Further, Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief rebutting the findings
and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Thus, for
all the reasons supra, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 52
and dependent claims 53-60 not separately argued with particularity (Br. 18-
20). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 52 and claims 53-60.
With respect to claims 61-65, rejected over the combination of
Witehira, Huston, and Liang (claim 61, see Ans. 14-15) or Witehira, Huston,
and Jiang (claims 62 and 65, see Ans. 15-17) or Witehira, Huston, Jiang, and
Liang (claims 63 and 64, see Ans. 18-19), Appellants do not separately
argue either the rejections, or claims 61-65 with particularity (Br. 21-23).
Instead, Appellants merely reiterate the arguments made with respect to
Appeal 2011-012877
Application 10/521,413

9

claim 52 (supra). (Id.) Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 61-65 for the same reasons as claim 52 (supra).

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
25-37 and 52-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 25-37 and 52-65.

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

ELD