Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2013

11672521 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KUEN LEE, KUO-CHUNG HUANG,
and CHAO-HSU TSAI
____________

Appeal 2011-006844
Application 11/672,5211
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
stereo-image display apparatus. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Industrial Technology Research Institute.
Appeal 2011-006844
Application 11/672,521

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Dec. 13, 2010, the Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed Jan. 14, 2011, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Mar.
11, 2011.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a stereo-image displaying apparatus that includes
a light-source module and an image displaying device. The light-source
module has at least one light-emitting block. A light-source driving unit is
coupled with the light-source module and the image displaying device. The
light-emitting block is driven by the light-source driving unit to
synchronously emit a light according to a displaying frequency of the image
displaying device with a reduced light-emitting duty cycle. The cross-talk
between stereo images is reduced by using the light emitted from the light-
source module, synchronously associating with the image displaying device.
See Abstract.
Claims 1-20 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. The
claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).2 An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A stereo-image displaying apparatus, comprising:
a light-source module including at least one light-
emitting block;
a light-source driving unit, coupled with the light-source
module, wherein the light emitting block is driven by the light-

2 Appellants argue claims 1-20 as a single group and designate claim 1as
representative. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-006844
Application 11/672,521

3
source driving unit to periodically emit a light according to a
duty cycle; and
a stereo-image displaying panel, changing an image at an
image displaying frequency, wherein a stereo image composed
from a left-eye image and right-eye image is lit and presented to
the viewers’ eyes by the light-source module which is
synchronously controlled to emit light by the light-source
driving unit.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Oda3 and Mather.4 (Ans. 5-16).
Appellants contend that a person of skill art would not have combined
the teachings of Oda and Mather. Appellants contend that Oda forms a 2D,
moving image by presenting to both eyes simultaneously a first image
displayed by the even (2nth) lines of a LCD display and alternating with a
second image displayed by the odd (2nth+1) lines of the LCD display.
Appellants contend that because each eye sees both images at different
times, a ghost image may be formed. Appellants contend that 3D LCD
monitors, developed subsequently to Oda, require a sufficiently faster LCD
response so that the ghosting problem addressed by Oda cannot occur (App.
Br. 4-6). Appellants contend that Mather projects separate images to the left
and right eyes using a distinct mechanism from that of Oda (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner finds that the rejection of Appellants’ claims to a
backlit 3D display employing synchronous backlight control to reduce

3 Oda, US 6,816,142 B2, issued Nov. 9, 2004.
4 Mather, US 2009/0040426 A1, pub. Feb. 12, 2009, priority
PCT/IB05/50246, filed Jan. 21, 2005.
Appeal 2011-006844
Application 11/672,521

4
crosstalk is based on the finding that it would have been obvious to adapt
and operate Oda’s backlit 2D LCD employing synchronous backlight control
to limit cross-talk in accordance with the teachings of Mather of providing
backlit 3D LCD employing synchronous backlight control to achieve the
predictable result of producing a 3D display with limited cross-talk. Ans.18.
Appellants reply that the claims relate to reducing stereo-image cross-
talk between the left eye and right eye by controlling the duty cycle of the
backlight module for alternately displaying the left-eye image and right-eye
image. Both the left-eye image and the right-eye image comprise basically
the same image content although the pair of images is offset by a parallax
(Reply Br. 1). Appellants contend that, contrary to the claimed invention,
Mather teaches a parallax barrier so that the window plane simultaneously
displays both the right and left viewing windows, but in different spatial
regions. Because the left and right eyes do not receive the image intended
for the opposite eye, cross-talk between the left eye and right eye would not
occur. Moreover, Appellants contend that Mather’s 3D display does not
result in ghost effects between odd and even images. Thus, there would be
no reason to combine the teachings of Mather and Oda. Reply Br. 1-2.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive for the above stated
reasons.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.

REVERSED
Appeal 2011-006844
Application 11/672,521

5
msc