Ex Parte Mason

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

14112768 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

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