Ex Parte Joseph et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12877190 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/877, 190 09/08/2010
63652 7590 03/01/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP
8055 East Tufts A venue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DANIEL M. JOSEPH
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.
10-DIS-100-PR-US-UTL 2727
EXAMINER
HESS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
PTOMail@mfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL M. JOSEPH and MARK A. REICHOW
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and CARLL. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
I. STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-7 and 21-32. Claims 8-20 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention "relates, in general, to
the illusion of autostereoscopic or three dimensional (3D) image generation
and projection" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An autostereoscopy apparatus, comprising:
a passive autostereoscopic panel with a front surface, a back
surface, and at least one ink layer providing a plurality of static
images, the autostereoscopic panel reflecting light striking the front
surface to display a three dimensional (3D) display of images based
on the static images; and
an image source projecting light providing two dimensional
images onto the back surface, wherein the back surface is non-opaque
to allow the light of the two dimensional images to pass through the at
least one ink layer and the back surface, whereby the two dimensional
images are projected outward from the front surface within the 3D
display.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Conley
Burak
US 6,385,882B1
US 2004/0192430 Al
2
May 14, 2002
Sept. 30, 2004
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
Claims 1-7 and 21-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Conley and Burak.
II. ISSUES
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Conley and Burak teaches or would have suggested
"an image source projecting light providing two dimensional images onto
the back surface, wherein the back surface is non-opaque to allow the light
of the two dimensional images to pass through the at least one ink layer and
the back surface" (claim 1, emphasis added). In particular, the issue turns on
whether one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, upon
reading of Burak's use of a transparent, non-opaque layer to pass light
images in a multi-layer display, would have found it obvious to provide the
ink layer as set forth in Conley's image display system on a non-opaque
layer.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Conley
1. Conley discloses a display panel (Fig. 3) having a lenticular
layer 14, a backing layer 30, and an ink layer 12, 24 printed on the backing
layer 30 (col. 7, 11. 61---67), the display panel providing a 3D visual
appearance (Abstr.).
2. Conley discloses an embodiment of a multi-layer display panel
(Fig. 6), wherein an intermediate layer 32 includes ink printed on transparent
material (col. 8, 11. 19-35). Specifically, Conley discloses that "[t]he display
10 further includes a third layer 32 interposed between the lenticular lens 14
3
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
and a second layer 28 ... . Desirably, the third layer 32 is constructed of any
material that is sufficiently transparent to allow the message to be viewed
without substantial distortion or obliteration" (id.). Ink images 12, 24 are
printed on the second layer 28 and third layer 32, respectively (col. 8, 11. 19-
44).
Burak
3. Burak discloses a multi-layer, 3D, video display 1300, wherein
each layer is transparent to permit a second layer 1304 to be visible through
a first layer 1302 (i-f 48, 113-118; Fig. 13), as well as a lenticular lens
overlaid onto the video display (i-f 132; claims 13 and 24).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the claimed invention is "in contrast to typical
lenticular or other stereoscopic panels" in that "the back layer of the imaging
element 112 is non-opaque" in order to reflect light and create 3D imagery
"but, also, concurrently [allow] a second or additional imagery to be
projected through the back layer, the ink layer, and the lenticules to the
viewer" (App. Br. 8). As for claim 1, Appellants contend that the "non-
opaque" limitation is not taught by the combination of references because
Conley discloses "a conventional lenticular sheet" that "has an opaque
backing layer that blocks light from entering from the rear" (id.), with "no
discussion that the back surface of a lenticular device should or even could
be non-opaque and still work for its intended purpose" (App. Br. 11 ).
According to Appellants, "no reference shows use of an ink layer with a
non-opaque back surface" (id.).
Appellants further contend that Conley and Burak only use one source
of images-an ink layer or an liquid crystal display (LCD) or similar
4
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
device-and only one light source-reflected light or light from an LCD or
the like-at a time (App. Br. 10).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant "cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually" (Ans. 9). The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conley discloses a display panel having a lenticular layer and an ink
layer printed on a backing layer (FF 1 ). We find no error with the
Examiner's reliance on Conley for teaching and suggesting the "passive
autostereoscopic panel with a front surface, a back surface, and at least
one ink layer providing a plurality of static images, ... the
autostereoscopic panel reflecting light striking the front surface to
display a three dimensional (3D) display of images based on the static
images" of claim 1 (Final Act. 3).
Burak discloses a video display in a multi-layer, 3D display, wherein
each layer is transparent to permit a second layer to be visible through a first
layer (FF 3). We find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Burak for
teaching and suggesting a surface that is non-opaque to allow projected light
to pass through the surface (Final Act. 4), as recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
Contrary to Appellant's argument that Conley provides "no teaching
that when this image is printed it should be ... printed onto non-opaque
paper that can be applied to the back of the lenticular lens array/sheet" and
"still work for its intended purpose" (App. Br. 11 ), Conley's disclosure (FF
2) plainly illustrates a non-opaque back surface in a lenticular device. We
note that, contrary to Appellants' contention that "no reference cited by the
Examiner shows a passive autostereoscopic display with ... a non-opaque
back surface" (App. Br. 8) and "no reference shows use of an ink layer
with a non-opaque back surface" (App. Br. 11 ), Conley explicitly
discloses a passive autostereoscopic display having a non-opaque backing
layer in the Figure 6 embodiment:
The display 10 further includes a third layer 32
interposed between the lenticular lens 14 and a second layer
28 ... . Desirably, the third layer 32 is constructed of any material
that is sufficiently transparent to allow the message to be
viewed without substantial distortion or obliteration,
(FF 2). Both the second layer 28 and the third layer 32 have ink images 12,
24 printed on them (id.).
Additionally, the Examiner cites paragraphs 113-118 of Burak (Final
Act. 4), which discuss a multi-layer display having transparent, non-opaque
layers to permit a second layer to be visible through a first layer (FF 3).
Conley's disclosure of an ink layer in a display panel (FF 1, 2) in view of
Burak's disclosure of transparent layers to pass light images in a multi-layer
display (FF 3) discloses or suggests providing the ink layer on a transparent,
non-opaque layer. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that one skilled in the
art would have found it obvious to print the ink layer on non-opaque
material rather than an opaque material in the combination of Conley and
6
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
Burak (Ans. 10, 14). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's finding
that the combination of Conley and Burak teaches and suggests the contested
limitations (Final Act. 4).
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the skilled artisan
would have found it obvious to combine Conley and Burak "because each
reference is drawn to the same field of endeavor and because such a
combination recognizes the eye-catching effects of three-dimensional
lenticular displays can be enhanced when combined with moving
background images, especially in multi-layered displays" (Final Act. 4).
That is, we find the Examiner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Appellants have not identified sufficient evidence to support the
assertion, on page 13 of the Appeal Brief, that the combination of Conley
and Burak's familiar elements does "more than yield predictable results,"
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We agree with the
Examiner that "one skilled in the art would not be discouraged from trying
to use a transparent backing for a lenticular display because one skilled in
the art would not foresee any technical incompatibility with printing 'static'
material on a transparent medium" (Ans. 12) and that "the subject matter of
claim 1 is simply a combination of two known elements, a video display and
a lenticular 3D static display, which yields a predictable result" (Ans. 9).
While Appellants contend that Burak, and thus the combination of the
references, discloses "only one source of images" that "may be provided by
an ink layer (as does Conley) OR, instead, it may be provided by an LCD or
similar device" (App. Br. 10), we agree with the Examiner that the
7
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
combination of Conley and Burak teaches or would have suggested both an
ink layer (in a lenticular display) and a video display "in light of Burak's
teaching of multilayer displays" (Ans. 9). Appellants' argument that "[i]f
such a conventional lenticular display device is applied over a video display
the opacity of the backing layer would block the light from the video
display" (App. Br. 12) is unpersuasive because, as discussed above, the
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use a non-opaque backing
layer (Ans. 10, 14).
Appellants further contend that "there are two sources of light used in
claim 1 while Conley only uses reflected light ... and Burak only uses one
source, too - either reflected light or light from an LCD or the like (but not
both concurrently)" (App. Br. 10). We agree with the Examiner that the
"number of light sources is not claimed," but also that the combination of
Conley and Burak nevertheless teaches both reflected light (i.e., ambient
light) and a light source from the emissive display (Ans. 13). We agree with
the Examiner that this is due to ambient light being present with an emissive
display having a light source (Ans. 13), and we note that Appellants' own
reflected light from the light source 120 is, indeed, ambient light (Spec.
ii 30).
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
and claims 2 and 5-7 depending therefrom and falling therewith (App. Br.
11) over Conley and Burak. Appellants do not provide substantive
arguments for independent claims 21 and 27 separate from those of claim 1
(App. Br. 12). Thus, claims 21 and 27, claims 22, 25, and 26 depending
from claim 21, and claims 28, 31, and 32 depending from claim 27 fall with
claim 1 over Conley and Burak.
8
Appeal2014-002836
Application 12/877, 190
As for claim 3, Appellants merely contend that the Examiner "does
not provide a citation to Conley" in the response to arguments in the final
rejection, and that Appellants "could find no masking of a video image
based on the static images provided by the ink layer" in Conley (App. Br.
15). However, as the Examiner points out, and we agree, Appellants needed
only to look to the rejection of claim 3 to find the citation "Conley, column
3, lines 33--48: disclosing the masking of image layers" (Ans. 14; Final Act.
5).
As for claim 4, Appellants contend that "Burak does not adjust a
range of X-Y coordinates to display 2D images in differing layers of the 3 D
display provided by an autostereoscopic panel but simply displays its 2D
images on different physical layers" (App. Br. 12). However, we agree with
the Examiner that claim 4 does not require adjusting a range ofX-Y
coordinates to display 2D images and that "Appellant has failed to argue that
which is claimed" (Ans. 13).
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claims
3 and 4 over Conley and Burak. Appellants do not provide substantive
arguments for claims 23, 24, 29, and 30 separate from those of claims 3 and
4 (App. Br. 12). Thus, claims 23, 24, 29, and 30 fall with claims 3 and 4
over Conley and Burak.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 and 21-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9