Ex Parte McKee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2008

10769129 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WILLIAM JAMES McKEE, JR.
_____________

Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: May 15, 2008
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) from the final
rejection of claims 2 through 16.
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
INVENTION

The invention is directed to a system to allow for viewing of a three
dimensional image on a flat panel display. The flat panel display has
alignment hardware which allows a lenticular screen to be placed over the
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

2

display for use when viewing three dimensional images. The screen can be
removed when viewing two dimensional images. See page 1 and 2 of
Appellant’s Specification. Claim 8 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
8. In an image display system having a flat panel display and a
lenticular screen held in juxtaposition with a surface of the display,
wherein the improvement comprises mounting hardware affixed to the
display proximate to the display surface and adapted to removably
hold the lenticular screen in a fixed position relative to the display
surface, and at least one test pattern displayed on the display surface
which is capable of manipulation by a user to meet predefined criteria
for alignment of the lenticular screen relative to the display surface.

REFERENCES

Takahashi US 4,921,330 May 1, 1990
Lipton US 6,519,088 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
Chen US 2003/009533 A1 May 22, 2003

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 6 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lipton in view of Takahashi. The Examiner’s rejection is
on pages 5 through 8 of the Answer.
Claims 2 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lipton in view of Takahashi and Chen. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 8 and 9 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
October 16, 2006), Reply Brief (received August 13, 2007) and the Answer
(mailed January 3, 2007) for the respective details thereof.

Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

3

ISSUES
Rejection of Independent Claim 11.
Appellant contends on pages 9 through 18 of the Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error.
Appellant argues that the term “flat panel display” would be understood by
one skilled in the art “to generally be a flat panel computer display screen or
monitor, such as an LCD monitor, or simply a video display that is thin and
flat” and that the baseboard and print of Lipton is not a flat panel display.
App. Br. 10, 11. Appellant also argues that “[t]here is no teaching or
suggestion either explicitly or implicitly in Lipton that the lenticular lens
screen 206 could be removed from the display to permit viewing of planar
images.” App. Br. 11. Appellant argues, on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief,
that Lipton does not teach or necessarily require alignment hardware to hold
the lenticular screen to the display as claimed. Appellant argues that
Takahashi’s tape and clamping fixtures are not aligning hardware, but rather
mounting hardware, and that there is no teaching that Takahashi’s lenticular
lens screen 206 could be removed from the display to permit viewing of
planar images. App. Br. 12. On pages 12 through 16 of the Brief, Appellant
argues that there is no motivation to combine Lipton and Takahashi’s
teachings.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to independent claim 11
present us with three issues; whether the Examiner erred in: a) finding that
Lipton teaches a flat panel display as claimed; b) finding that Takahashi
teaches alignment hardware to hold the lenticular screen to the display as
claimed; and c) determining that one skilled in the art would combine the
teachings of Lipton and Takahashi.
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

4

Rejection of Independent Claim 16.
Appellant contends on pages 18 and 19 of the Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. As
with claim 11, Appellant argues that Lipton and Takahashi do not teach a
flat panel display. Similarly, Appellant argues that Takahashi does not teach
that the lens sheet is removable and that there is no motivation to combine
the references.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to independent claim 16
present us with the same issues as discussed with respect to claim 11.

Rejection of Independent Claim 8.
Appellant contends, on pages 19 and 20 of the Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. As
with claim 11, Appellant argues that Lipton and Takahashi do not teach a
flat panel display. Similarly, Appellant argues that Takahashi does not teach
that the lens sheet is removable. Appellant also argues that there is no
motivation to combine the references. Further, Appellant argues that the use
of Lipton’s test patterns is contrary to Takahashi’s teachings, as there is no
disclosure of screen alignment in Takahashi.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to independent claim 8
present us with the same issues as discussed with respect to claim 11.
Additionally, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue of whether it
is contrary to the teachings of Takahashi to be used with Lipton.

Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

5

Rejection of Dependent Claims 2 through 5.
Appellant contends on page 21 of the Brief, that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in error. Appellant
argues that claims 2 through 5 are allowable for the reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 11, on which they depend. Further, Appellant
argues that Chen is directed to an optical shield for an automobile visor and
as such has no teaching or suggestion that could be combined with the
stereoscopic images display of Lipton or the display of Takahashi.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in combining Chen with Lipton and Takahashi.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Office personnel must rely on Appellant’s disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the “terms used in the claims.” Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused
with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.’” (emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet Am., Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs.,
Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has recently stated
that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). Further, the Court stated
“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

6

likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id.
at 1739.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s Specification states that “Figure 1 shows the flat panel
display 101. This display may be any one of a number of
technologies presently known in the industry such as a plasma
display, liquid crystal display, cathode ray tube, and so forth.”
Spec. 2.
2. Appellant’s Specification identifies that the lenticular screen along
with a software program to encode the image data are necessary to
show images stereoscopically. Spec. 2.
3. Viewing planar images through the lenticular screen distort small
type and fine detail in the image. Spec. 1.
4. Lipton teaches a lenticular stereogram which has an improved
viewing zone for a specific viewing distance. Abstract.
5. Lipton’s method makes use of a lenticular screen item 206, which
is placed over a print. See Figure 2; col. 5, ll. 31-44.
6. Lipton uses the term “print” generically to be any type of well
known display, including a rear projected display and an electronic
display screen. Col. 3, ll. 17-21; col. 6, ll. 11-18.
7. Lipton is silent as to how the lenticular screen is mounted to the
print.
8. Takahashi teaches a rear projection system video display which
includes a lenticular screen. Abstract.
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

7

9. Takahashi teaches that the lenticular screen is mounted to the front
of the display by a series of clamping fixtures (items 8) and
adhesive. Col. 5, lines 30-62.
10. Takahashi’s clamping fixtures attach to the cabinet of the display
by screws items 9. Col. 5, ll. 15-25.
11. Takahashi’s Figures 1 and 2 show that the clamping devices
position and hold the lenticular display over the opening in the
cabinet of the display.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Independent Claim 11.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Lipton teaches a flat panel display as claimed. Claim 11 recites
“a flat panel display having a display surface.” Appellant’s Specification
does not provide a definition of a flat panel display, but does provide
examples of flat panel displays. Fact 1. We note that Appellant’s proffered
definition (on page 10 of the Brief), that a flat panel display is a video
display that is thin and flat, is not commensurate with the usage of the term
in the Specification. Appellant’s Specification identifies that a flat panel
display can also be a cathode ray tube (Fact 1), which, as is known in the art,
is not “thin.” The Examiner has identified that the term “flat panel display”
is broader than argued by the Appellant. Ans. 9, 10. We concur with the
Examiner and construe the term “flat panel display” to be a display that
presents an image on a flat panel.
The Examiner finds that Lipton teaches a flat panel display. We
concur with the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 10. Lipton teaches that the
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

8

“print” on which the lenticular screen is mounted can be any of a number of
types of displays, including rear projection displays and electronic displays.
Fact 6. As is shown in Figure 2, the “print” upon which the lenticular screen
is mounted is flat. Thus, we find that Lipton teaches a flat panel display as
recited in claim 11.
Similarly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that Takahashi teaches alignment hardware to
hold the lenticular screen to the display as claimed. Claim 11 recites a
“display system that is convertible between stereoscopic and planar viewing
modes” and “a lenticular screen removably held by the alignment hardware
in a fixed position in juxtaposition with the display surface.” Thus, we
consider the scope of claim 11 to include that the lenticular display is held
against the display surface by the alignment hardware.
Appellant’s arguments on pages 11, 16, and 17 of the Brief, and pages
3 and 4 of the Reply Brief, which are based upon the lenticular screen being
removably held for the purpose of converting between viewing modes, are
not considered persuasive, as the arguments are not commensurate in scope
with the claim. Claim 11 recites no limitation that equates the system being
convertible between stereoscopic and planar viewing modes with the screen
being removably held in fixed position with the display surface. As the
convertible nature of the display system is in the preamble of the claim, we
concur with the Examiner’s determination that it is a field of use limitation
and as such is not afforded much patentable weight.
Additionally, we note that Appellant’s Specification does not compel
such a narrow interpretation of the claim. Appellant’s Specification
identifies that stereoscopic images require both the lenticular screen and
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

9

specially generated images (Fact 2) (i.e., switching modes requires more
than changing the screen in front of the display). Appellant’s Specification
also identifies that planar images, although lacking in fine detail, can be
viewed through the lenticular screen (Fact 3). Thus, one skilled in the art
viewing the Specification would recognize that switching image display
could involve changing the generated image, as both stereoscopic and planar
images may be viewed through the lenticular screen.
The Examiner has found that Lipton does not teach how the lenticular
screen is held in position on the print (display screen). Ans. 6. We concur,
and find Appellant’s supposition, on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief, that it is
held in place by gravity and aligned by merely placing the screen on the
print, to be unsupported speculation. The Examiner finds that Takahashi is
in the same field of endeavor as Lipton, and teaches a system for mounting a
lenticular lens on the front of a display device. We concur with the
Examiner’s findings regarding Takahashi. Takahashi teaches a rear
projection display, see Figure 3 (Fact 8), which is one of the types of
displays contemplated by Lipton (Fact 6). Further, Takahashi teaches using
a plurality of brackets that hold the lenticular lens. Fact 9. These brackets
are screwed into the face of the display. Fact 10. One skilled in the art
would recognize that screws are removable. Further, as is apparent from
Figures 1 and 2 of Takahashi, the clamping devices hold and position the
lenticular display over the opening (through which the image is projected) in
the display cabinet. Fact 11. Thus, we find that Takahashi teaches that the
brackets are removable and function to align and hold the lenticular lens
over the display.
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

10

Finally, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in determining that one skilled in the art would combine the
teachings of Lipton and Takahashi. Appellant argues on page 14 of the
Brief, that:
Takahashi thus provides mounting hardware for the composite screen
to the cabinet, but does not suggest the desirability or motivation to
provide removable alignment functionality nor use in connection with
a flat panel display, particularly with use of a test pattern, nor the need
or advantage to switch between planar and stereoscopic modes.

Further, on page 16 of the Brief, Appellant argues:

The Examiner has not established any legitimate suggestion or
motivation to make the cited combination - she has only asserted that
it would be desirable to employ some type of "alignment hardware or
mounting hardware" to hold the lenticular screen to the undisclosed
flat panel display, apparently for a purpose other than switching
between stereoscopic and planar viewing modes.

We are not persuaded by these arguments. As discussed supra, we
find that Takahashi teaches that a lenticular lens is removably aligned in a
fixed position on a display (which meets the claimed flat panel display).
Further, Appellant’s arguments rely upon a narrow interpretation that
equates the “removably aligned” limitation with the convertible nature of the
display. As discussed supra, we do not consider claim 11 to be so limited.
In this case, the Examiner is combining the lens and pattern teachings of
Lipton with the teaching of mounting a lenticular lens in Takahashi. This is
using Takahashi’s teaching for its intended purpose (i.e., mounting a
lenticular screen to a display), thus we consider it to be nothing more than
using known methods to achieve predictable results.
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

11

For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. Appellant has
not provided arguments directed to dependent claims 7 and 12 through 15
similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, in accordance with 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), claims 7 and 12 through 15 are grouped with claim
11. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 11 through 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection of Independent Claim 16.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Claim 16 recites “a flat panel display”
and “a lenticular screen removably held in juxtaposition with the display.”
As with claim 11, we do not consider the recitation of a “flat panel display”
in claim 16 to be limited to a display that is thin and flat. Further, the scope
of claim 16 includes that the screen is removably held in position on the
display, as with claim 11, we find no connection between the removable
mounting of the lenticular screen and the viewing of stereoscopic images.
As discussed supra with respect to claim 11, we find that Lipton
teaches a flat panel display. As also discussed supra, we find that Takahashi
teaches a method of removably mounting lenticular screens. Further, as
discussed above we find that combining Lipton’s teaching of using a
lenticular screen and test patterns with the mounting system of Takahashi to
be obvious as it is nothing more than using known methods to perform their
known results.
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

12

For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 and the
rejection of that claim is therefore sustained.

Rejection of Independent Claim 8.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Claim 8 recites “an image display system
having a flat panel display” and “wherein the improvement comprises
mounting hardware affixed to the display proximate to the display surface
and adapted to removably hold the lenticular screen in a fixed position
relative to the display surface.” As with claim 11, we do not consider the
recitation of a “flat panel display” in claim 8 to be limited to a display that is
thin and flat. Further, the scope of claim 8 includes that the screen is
removably held in position on the display.
As discussed supra with respect to claim 11, we find that Lipton
teaches a flat panel display. As also discussed supra, we find that Takahashi
teaches a method of removably mounting lenticular screens. Further, as
discussed above, we find that combining Lipton’s teaching of using a
lenticular screen and test patterns with the mounting system of Takahashi to
be obvious as it is nothing more than using known methods to perform their
known results. We do not consider it to be contrary to the teachings of
Takahashi to use the mounting system with the test patterns. Takahashi
teaches a method of mounting a lenticular screen to a display. We find no
disclosure in Takahashi (nor has Appellant identified any) that would
discourage the mounting method for lenticular screens on stereoscopic
displays such as used in Lipton’s system.
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

13

For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Appellant has
not provided arguments directed to dependent claims 9 and 10 similarly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), claims 9 and 10 are grouped with claim 8. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

Rejection of Independent Claim 5.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 through 5. The Examiner states, on page 9 of the
Answer:
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the
teachings of Chen to modify the alignment strips of Takahashi et al[.]
to include these additional positioning projections or pegs on the
alignment strips or the clamping fixture and mating holes or notches
on the lenticular screen to make the lenticular screen being tightly
held and properly positioned with respect to the display system for the
benefit of ensuring the alignment of the lenticular screen with respect
to the display system therefore ensuring the good image quality.

We disagree with the Examiner’s rationale. Takahashi discusses
mounting brackets on four sides of the lenticular screen, which as discussed
supra position the lenticular screen with respect to the display. The
Examiner has not identified any rationale as to why one would need the pegs
in the brackets as the brackets already position the lenticular lens. Further,
Chen does not identify any purpose for the pegs (items 312a), other than to
connect the sun shield (lens screen item 32) to the connecting plate (item
31). See Figure 1, paragraph [0015]. Thus, we do not find that one skilled
Appeal 2007-4299
Application 10/769,129

14

in the art would recognize the need or a benefit to be gained by using the
pegs of Chen. Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness, and we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 5.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The
decision of the Examiner is therefore affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

KIS

REAL D - Patent Department
by Baker & McKenzie LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
Dallas TX 75201