Ex Parte MasonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 201814112768 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/112,768 10/18/2013 121361 7590 09/20/2018 BAE-UK I Finch & Maloney Gateway One 50 Commercial, Suite 300 Manchester, NH 03101 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen Paul Mason 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. BAE.XA3857US 1478 EXAMINER DEHERRERA, KRISTINA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2872 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2018 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@finchmaloney.com nmaloney@finchmaloney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN PAUL MASON Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed October 18, 2013 ("Spec."); the Non-Final Office Action notice emailed November 8, 2016 ("Non-Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed June 9, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer notice emailed August 25, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Appellant's Reply Brief filed October 18, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BAE SYSTEMS plc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 The subject matter on appeal relates to projection displays for displaying an image to a viewer (see, e.g., claim 1 ). According to the Inventor, lens systems for conventional head up displays are large and bulky, which may limit the use of a head up display in the cockpit area for an aircraft or other vehicle. Spec. 1: 6-16. The Inventor states that waveguides have been used for head up displays because they are more suitable for space limited environments but a trend in aircraft design is to use large panoramic canopies that provide insufficient space for a conventional display using a waveguide. Id. 1: 17-27, 3 :21-30. In view of this, the Inventor discloses a projection display, an embodiment of which is depicted in Figure 3, as reproduced below. ··• ........ ... ;:·:;::::::::::-;:.::.:-~~::;::::·;:;:."'" ··· __________ >') . ..-.-, ... ~::::::.:~~.:~'-61 52 58 l 5'.J it 6C FICi- } 1(1 Figure 3 is a schematic view of a projection display. The projection display 10 includes, among other things, an image- providing light source arrangement 14 that injects an input pupil 61 into a waveguide assembly 50. Id. 6:23-30. The waveguide assembly 50 includes diffraction gratings or diffraction regions to expand the input pupil 61 in first and second generally orthogonal dimensions. Id. 6:30, 7:1--4, 7:23-26. The 2 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 projection display 10 further includes a combiner 16 arranged to direct an exit pupil from the waveguide assembly 50 towards a viewer for viewing an image 18 and to transmit light 52 from a real world scene through the combiner 16 so the image 18 overlays the light 52 from the real world scene. Id. 7:5-8. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A projection display, for displaying an image to a viewer, including: an image-providing light source device arranged to generate an input pupil of image bearing light; a waveguide assembly arranged to receive the input pupil of image bearing light, injected from the image bearing light source, and including first and second diffraction regions arranged respectively to expand the input pupil in first and second generally orthogonal dimensions and to output an exit pupil of image bearing light expanded in the first and second dimensions from the waveguide assembly; and a combiner having a surface arranged to receive the image bearing light from the exit pupil of the waveguide assembly at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to the surface of the combiner, and to direct the exit pupil of light, by reflection, towards a viewer for viewing the image bearing light and to allow light from a real world scene through the combiner so that the image bearing light overlays the light from the real world scene. 3 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL I. Claims 1, 3---6, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lacoste3 in view of Valera; 4 II. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lacoste in view of Valera and further in view of Amitai· 5 ' III. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lacoste in view of Valera and further in view of Tai· 6 ' IV. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lacoste in view of Valera and further in view of Simmonds '222; 7 and V. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lacoste in view of Valera and further in view of Simonds '137. 8 3 Lacoste et al. US 2012/0224062 Al, published September 6, 2012 ("Lacoste"). 4 Valera et al., WO 2010/119240 Al, published October 21, 2010 ("Valera"). 5 Amitai et al., US 6,580,529 Bl, issued June 17, 2003 ("Amitai"). 6 Tai, US 2012/0033195 Al, published February 9, 2012 ("Tai"). 7 Simmonds et al., US 2009/0190222 Al, published July 30, 2009 ("Simmonds '222"). 8 Simmonds et al., US 2008/0285137 Al, published November 20, 2008 ("Simmonds '13 7"). 4 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 DISCUSSION Rejection I Claims 1, 3---6, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lacoste in view of Valera. With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds Lacoste discloses a projection display including, among other things, an image-providing light source and a waveguide assembly arranged to receive an input pupil of the light source, expand the input pupil in first and second dimensions, and output an exit pupil. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Lacoste also discloses a combiner arranged to direct the exit pupil toward a viewer for viewing an image and to allow light from a real world scene through the combiner so the image overlays the light from the real world scene. Id. The Examiner finds Lacoste does not disclose that the waveguide includes two diffraction regions, as recited in claim 1, but finds Valera discloses a waveguide assembly having two diffraction regions that expand an input pupil in first and second generally orthogonal dimensions and output an exit pupil. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Lacoste in view of Valera so an image can be expanded without requiring very accurate alignment while producing good results. Id. Appellant contends Lacoste does not disclose a waveguide because Lacoste's image replication optics 1050 are merely a pair of reflective surfaces (meaning, according to Appellant, that the optics 1050 are opaque) separated by an air gap and thus the optics 1050 are not a waveguide that expands light in two dimensions. Appeal Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant asserts Valera discloses an optical waveguide that is transparent and does not require or use a separate combiner, as in Lacoste's system. Appeal Br. 6. 5 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 Appellant further argues Lacoste's optics 1050 and Valera's waveguide operate according to different principles and therefore are not comparable to each other. Reply Br. 5. Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Lacoste discloses a head up display and that such displays enable the display of imagery with the outside world. Lacoste ,r,r 1-2, 91. Figure 3a of Lacoste is reproduced below. l WHJ/ Figure 3a ··--· -D 1 10-liO I I COLLIM.'\TION L5 0:l'FR.C\.CriDN ANGLii Figure 3a depicts a head up display 6 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 The head up display 1000 includes a holographic image projection system 1010 having red R, green G, and blue B lasers to produce light that is ultimately captured by image replication optics 1050 before a combiner element 1052 combines the replicated image with an external view. Id. ,r,r 91-99. Lacoste discloses that the image replication optics 1050 may include a waveguide 1056 that "captures the light from the image projection system and has an angled end within the image replication optics waveguide to facilitate release of the captured light into the image replication optics waveguide." Id. ,r 101 (emphases added). Thus, Lacoste's disclosure indicates that the image replication optics 1050 is a waveguide. Moreover, the effect of the optics 1050 upon light, as depicted in Figure 3b of Lacoste, appears to meet the definition for a waveguide cited by Appellant (i.e., "a device designed to confine and direct the propagation of electromagnetic waves"). Reply Br. 3. As a result, Lacoste's disclosure supports the Examiner's findings. Moreover, regardless of whether Lacoste's optics 1050 is a waveguide, Lacoste discloses the optics 1050 function as a pupil expander that expands a beam in two dimensions. Lacoste ,r 103. Therefore, Lacoste demonstrates it was known in the art to use optics 1050 that expand an input pupil in two dimensions in combination with a combiner 1052 that combines the replicated image from the optics 1050 with an external view. As the Examiner finds (Non-Final Act. 3), Lacoste does not disclose that the optics 1050 accomplish pupil expansion via first and second diffraction regions, as recited in claim 1. However, Valera discloses an optical waveguide including, among other things, a diffraction region to expand image-bearing light in a first dimension and another diffraction 7 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 region to expand the image-bearing light in a second dimension orthogonal to the first dimension, thus achieving pupil replication. Valera 1 :2, 1: 18-28, 5 :2-17. Appellant does not dispute that Valera discloses a waveguide having diffraction regions that expand image-bearing light in first and second dimensions. Appeal Br. 6. Moreover, Valera discloses that the waveguide may be used in a head up display. Id. 3: 16-19. Thus, Valera's disclosure also supports the Examiner's findings. According to Appellant, Valera's waveguide "has a built-in combiner" and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to replace Lacoste's image replication optics 1050, which uses a separate combiner 1052, with Valera's waveguide because Lacoste's combiner would no longer be needed. Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4---6. Appellant further argues the Examiner has relied upon impermissible hindsight (Reply Br. 1-2) and Lacoste and Valera do not provide a reasonable expectation that Lacoste's combiner and Valera's waveguide could be successfully combined to correctly output light toward a viewer, particularly when one of ordinary skill in the art realized Lacoste' s separate combiner was no longer required due to Valera's transparent waveguide. Appeal Br. 8. These arguments are also unpersuasive. As discussed above, Lacoste discloses a head up display including image replication optics 1050 and a combiner 1052 and that the image replication optics 1050 can function as a pupil expander so a beam is expanded in two dimensions. Lacoste ,r,r 91, 103. Valera discloses a waveguide having diffraction regions that expand a pupil (i.e., replicate the pupil) in two orthogonal dimensions. Valera 1: 18- 28, 5:2-17. 8 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 In other words, Lacoste discloses a system including optics that expand light in two dimensions according to one method (i.e., without the use of diffraction regions) and Valera discloses a waveguide for expanding light in two dimensions according to another method (i.e., via a waveguide including diffraction regions). Therefore, as indicated by the Examiner (Ans. 2, 4), the substitution of Valera's waveguide for Lacoste's optics would have been the use of a prior art element according to its established function that yields no more than a predictable result (i.e., using Valera's waveguide to expand light in two dimensions instead of using Lacoste' s optics 1050 to do so). KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007). Moreover, as stated by the Examiner (Non-final Act. 3), Valera teaches its waveguide advantageously provides a waveguide that expands light in different dimensions and provides good results without imposing the manufacturing challenge of aligning separate diffraction gratings. Valera 1:6-17. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that Lacoste' s optics 1050 and Valera's waveguide both function to expand an input pupil in first and second dimensions; Valera does not indicate its waveguide could not be used with a combiner; and should Valera's device need to combine a produced image with a real world scene an additional combiner would be necessary, as in Lacoste's system. Ans. 3-5. In view of this, the Examiner finds there is no indication in the applied references that their combination would not have yielded a predictable result. Id. at 4--5. Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's findings or the rejection of claim 1. Specifically, Appellant contends "if the opaque image replication optics 1050 of Lacoste were 9 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 replaced with the transparent waveguide of Valera, as suggested by the Examiner, then the presence of a separate combiner would interfere with the light released from the Valera waveguide, causing unpredictable results until the combiner was removed" and combining Lacoste and Valera "would produce unpredictable results not contemplated by the prior art references due to interference between the Lacoste combiner and the transparent Valera waveguide." Appeal Br. 7. As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 6), these are mere attorney arguments without citation to evidence or persuasive technical reasoning sufficiently explaining how the asserted interference and unpredictable results would occur. As a result, a preponderance of the evidence in the record supports the Examiner's rejection. Appellant does not argue claims 3---6, 8, and 12 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 3-9. For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we sustain the Examiner's § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8, and 12. Rejections 11-V Appellant does not present arguments for claims 2, 7, 9, and 10 separate from those for claim 1. Id. As discussed above, Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 7, 9, and 10. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is 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). 10 Appeal2018-000492 Application 14/112,768 AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation