Ex Parte Hey

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2006

09682659 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2006)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JOHN HEY
_____________

Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659
______________

ON BRIEF
_______________

Before BARRETT, OWENS and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 14-19, 21-26, 41
and 42. Claims 1-13, 20, 27-40 and 43 have been canceled.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a stereoscopic image display structure
and a system for viewing it. Claims 14 and 41 are illustrative:
Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659

2
14. A system for stereoscopic viewing of an image,
comprising:

means for displaying upon a generally flat surface
a conventional stereoscopic pair of images, proximate
but separately from one another;

means for improving the stereoscopic match between
the two images as viewed, by distorting at least one of
the images; and

an optical device adapted to be placed in front of
and proximate to a viewer's eyes, which device is worn
by the viewer or held by the viewer as though worn, and
comprising means for re-angling the optical axis for at
least one eye, so that each eye generally targets the
center of a respective one of the pair of images.

41. An image display structure for displaying upon a
generally flat surface, comprising:

a conventional stereoscopic pair of images, the
images proximate but separate from one another, wherein
at least one image is deliberately distorted prior to
display, to counteract distortion caused by the
viewer’s perspective relative to the image.

THE REFERENCES

Craig 4,740,836 Apr. 26, 1988
Surati et al. 6,456,339 Sep. 24, 2002
(Surati) (filed Oct. 28, 1998)
THE REJECTION
Claims 14-19, 21-26, 41 and 42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Craig in view of
Surati.
Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659

3

OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection.
The appellant’s independent claims are claims 14, 41 and 42.
Claim 14 requires means for improving the stereoscopic match
between the two images in a conventional stereoscopic pair of
images as viewed, by distorting at least one of the images.
Claim 41 requires deliberately distorting at least one of the
images in a conventional stereoscopic pair of images prior to
display, to counteract distortion caused by the viewer’s
perspective relative to the image. Claim 42 requires
deliberately distorting at least one of the images in a
conventional stereoscopic pair of images prior to display, to
counteract distortion caused by the viewer’s perspective relative
to the image.
Craig discloses a split screen video display divided by a
horizontal line to produce upper and lower images of a
stereoscopic pair (col. 2, lines 49-52). When a viewer looks
straight at the display through two substantially identical
optical wedges (refracting prisms), one eye sees the upper image
and the other eye sees the lower image (col. 3, lines 48-53;
col. 5, lines 21-39).
Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659

4
Surati derives a display map by selectively driving the
display while sensing the display output (col. 6, lines 26-29).
“A stored pixel correction function based on the display map is
applied to pixel data corresponding to the images to be
displayed, and the display is driven from the corrected or
modified pixel data” (col. 6, lines 31-34). Surati preferably
uses overlapping projection displays, and “[b]y tiling the screen
with many such projection displays, each point on the entire
screen surface is covered by one or more displays” (col. 8,
lines 28-30). “No attempt is made to align the projectors,
either mechanically or electrically, either in position,
rotation, relative brightness, or relative hue” (col. 8,
lines 31-33). Instead, Surati “relies on the application of
large amounts of computation to perform the perfect ‘alignment’
of these display elements” (col. 8, lines 34-35). Surati’s
technique can be used “to correct for many types of distortion,
including, but not limited to: imperfections across the display,
misalignment of plural projectors in a common region; intensity
variations across the display; keystone distortion; trapezoidal
distortion; pin cushion distortion; barrel distortion; chromatic
aberration; color mismatch; and lateral and rotational
displacement” (col. 6, lines 38-45).
Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659

5
The examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to provide a means to deliberately distort at least one
image prior to display as suggested by Surati et al. to the
system of Craig to improve the performance of the display
(column 9, lines 23-25)” (answer, page 5), and that “since Craig
is a display system where an image at an off angle would be
distorted, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to deliberately distort that image of Craig, as taught
by Surati et al., to provide improved performance of the display
by providing a better final image to the viewer” (answer,
page 6). The examiner further argues that it is logical to apply
Surati’s technique to any image that is viewed or shown at an
angle that is not perpendicular to the screen or display angle,
including Craig’s stereoscopic display, because the same problem
of image distortion will occur (answer, page 6).
The test for obviousness of a proposed combination of
references is not whether the proposed combination is logical
but, rather, is whether the applied references would have fairly
suggested the proposed combination to one of ordinary skill in
the art. The examiner has not established that the applied
Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659

6

references themselves would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, applying Surati’s pixel correction
function to a stereoscopic display to distort at least one of the
stereoscopic display’s images to improve the stereoscopic match
between the images, counteract distortion caused by a viewer’s
perspective relative to a distorted image, or to counteract image
mismatch caused by a viewing device. The examiner’s argument
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the
applied references to do so because in either display an off
angle image would be distorted (answer, page 6) is not supported
by evidence. The examiner’s mere speculation to that effect is
not sufficient for establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968); In re
Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ 360, 364 (CCPA 1962).
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection.
Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659

7

DECISION
The rejection of claims 14-19, 21-26, 41 and 42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Craig in view of Surati is reversed.
REVERSED

LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TJO/vsh

Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659

8

BRIAN M. DINGMAN
MIRICK, O'CONNELL,
DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP
100 FRONT STREET
WORCESTER, MA 01608