Ex Parte Otsuki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201812814659 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/814,659 06/14/2010 53124 7590 05/11/2018 ALG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC 10808 S. River Front Parkway, Suite 3100 SOUTH JORDAN, UT 84095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Nobuyuki Otsuki 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. 1013.1319A 9844 EXAMINER LE, BAO-LUAN Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/11/2018 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): 53124@alg-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) .UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NOBUYUKI OTSUKI, TETSU NAKAYAMA, and GENTAKAWABE Appeal2017-006829 Application 12/814, 659 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFERR. GUPTA, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 6, 7, 9--15, 20, 23-26, 29, and 37--44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In the Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed June 14, 2010 ("Spec."); the Final Office Action mailed October 8, 2015 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Br. filed May 3, 2016 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed January 18, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed March 20, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellants identify Seiko Epson Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal2017-006829 Application 12/814,659 The claims are directed to a short-throw projector3 with improved operability due to the location of a plurality of operation buttons. Independent claim 6 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 6. A short-throw projector comprising: a light source device, an optical modulation device that modulates a luminous flux emitted from the light source device in accordance with an image data to form an image, a projection optical device that projects the image from the optical modulation device toward a projection surface, an operation button which is disposed in such a way as to be exposed to the outside of a projector exterior housing, an image opening for allowing the image projected from the projection optical device to pass through, wherein the projection optical device includes a reflecting mirror which reflects the image, and projects it through the image opening, wherein the optical modulation device, the image opening, the operation button, and a sidewall of the projector exterior housing are respectively arranged in order from nearest to farthest from the projection surface. App. Br. 34. 3 A short throw projector allows the projector to be placed close to the projection screen. See Spec. i-f 2. 2 Appeal2017-006829 Application 12/814,659 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the follow prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Takito et al. ("Taki to") Amano et al. ("Amano") US 2008/0111976 Al US 2009/0040473 Al REJECTIONS May 15, 2008 Feb. 12, 2009 The Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) of all of the pending claims over Amano in view of Takito. Final Act. 2. OPINION Claims 6, 7, 12, and 20 are independent. App. Br. 34--38 (Claims App'x). Obviousness of claims 6 and 12 Claim 12 recites the limitations in claim 6, plus an additional limitation not pertinent to our decision. App. Br. 34, 36-37. With respect to claim 6, the Examiner finds that Amano' s Figures 1 and 11 teach all the recited elements except ( 1) an operation button which is disposed in such a way as to be exposed to the outside of a projector exterior housing (which the Examiner identifies as element 60/61 in Amano); and (2) "wherein the optical modulation device, the image opening, the operation button, and a sidewall of the projector exterior housing are respectively arranged in order from nearest to farthest from the projection surface." Final Act. 3. Figure 11 of Amano is reproduced below: 3 Appeal2017-006829 Application 12/814,659 Figure 11 illustrates one of the embodiments of the projector taught in Amano. Amano i-f 33. Figure elements of significance here are enclosure 10, cover 61, and window 611 through which image light passes, ,-r,-r 52, 55, 117. The Examiner finds that Takito's Figure 2 teaches buttons being placed on the exterior of the housing further away from the projection screen than the optical modulation device and the image opening. Final Act. 3. Figure 2 of Taki to is reproduced below: 4 Appeal2017-006829 Application 12/814,659 i::.~ :,.\. n·' P4 ~' Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation