Ex Parte Park

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 24, 2002

08753883 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JOON-SOO PARK
____________
Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
____________
HEARD: June 11, 2002
____________
Before RUGGIERO, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-3, which are all of the claims pending in the present
application.
The claimed invention relates to a stereoscopic image display
apparatus having only a single projector in which two separate
cameras are used to generate first and second television signals
corresponding to left and right signals. The left and right image
signals, reproduced by a receiver, are double-scanned at a doubled
Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
2
horizontal scan frequency to produce left and right double-scanned
image signals. A multiplexer alternately selects the left and
right double-scanned image signals at a switching speed of the
doubled horizontal frequency to produce a single multiplexed
double-scanned image signal which is projected onto a single
display screen.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A steroscopic image display apparatus comprising:
a receiver receiving first and second television signals and
producing left and right image signals therefrom, respectively;
double-scanning means for repeatedly scanning twice each line
of said left and right image signals, provided from said receiver,
at a doubled horizontal frequency of said image signals to produce
left and right double-scanned image signals;
multiplexing means for alternately selecting said left and
right double-scanned image signals at a switching speed of said
doubled horizontal frequency and producing a single multiplexed
double-scanned image signal; and
display means for projecting said multiplexed double-scanned
image signal onto a single display screen.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Nishikawa 4,736,246 Apr. 05, 1988
Claims 1-3 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Nishikawa.
Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
1 The Appeal Brief was filed March 13, 2000 (Paper No. 20). In response
to the Examiner's Answer dated May 11, 2000 (Paper No. 21), a Reply Brief was
filed July 11, 2000 (Paper No. 22) which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication dated September 27, 2000 (Paper No.
24).
3
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner,
we make reference to the Briefs1 and the Answer for the respective
details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Nishikawa reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 1-3. Accordingly, we reverse.
We note that anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as
disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited
functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
4
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to each of independent claims 1-3, all of the
appealed claims, the Examiner attempts to read the various
limitations on the disclosure of Nishikawa. In particular, the
Examiner points (Answer, pages 3 and 4) to the stereoscopic video
display system illustrated in Figures 3, 4A, and 4B of Nishikawa
and the accompanying description at column 4, lines 16-28.
After reviewing the Nishikawa reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position
as stated in the Briefs. We find to be particularly persuasive
Appellant’s argument related to the claimed limitation of “double-
scanning means for repeatedly scanning twice each line of said left
and right image signals,...”, a feature present in each of claims
1-3. We agree with Appellant’s contention (Brief, pages 5 and 6;
Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2) that, while Nishikawa describes a
frequency doubling and multiplexing procedure similar to that
claimed by Appellant, there is no disclosure in Nishikawa that the
frequency doubling operation is performed by double-scanning as
claimed.
Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
5
We are cognizant of the Examiner’s comments (Answer, pages 3
and 4) which assert that Nishikawa’s description of the frequency
doubling and multiplexing circuitry is evidence of “... the same
functionality of double scanning as claimed.” The mere fact,
however, that elements in the prior art Nishikawa reference may
perform the same function as those claimed, does not satisfy the
Examiner’s burden of showing that all of the claimed elements are
present in Nishikawa so as to support a prima facie case of
anticipation. Our review of Nishikawa reveals that the only
description of the implementation of the frequency doubling
operation appears at column 2, lines 28-34. This passage describes
the doubling of the frequency of stored left and right image
signals by reading out from memory at a read speed which is twice
that of the writing speed, a disclosure which does not satisfy the
“... repeatedly scanning twice each line” limitation of the
appealed claims. Further, since the Examiner has, in our view,
improperly interpreted the disclosure of Nishikawa, the issue of
the obviousness of this feature has not been addressed.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Nishikawa, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-3 is not
Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
6
sustained. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-3 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR/lp
Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
7
SUGHRUE MION ZINN MACPEAK AND SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20037-3202
Letty
JUDGE RUGGIERO
APPEAL NO. 2001-0050
APPLICATION NO. 08/753,883
APJ RUGGIERO
APJ BLANKENSHIP
APJ GROSS
DECISION: REVERSED
PREPARED: Jun 6, 2003
OB/HD
PALM
ACTS 2

DISK (FOIA)
REPORT
BOOK