Ex Parte Redmann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

13386945 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/386,945 01/25/2012 William Gibbens Redmann PU090105 1091
24498 7590 05/22/2017
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
EXAMINER
HAQUE, MD NAZMUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2017 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com
russell. smith @ technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM GIBBENS REDMANN
Appeal 2016-003187
Application 13/386,945
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 5—12 and 14. Claims 1—4 and 15—20 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We REVERSE.
1 The Examiner has objected to claim 13 as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but indicated claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. This issue is not before us.
Appeal 2016-003187
Application 13/386,945
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a display that
addresses crosstalk in stereoscopic displays that results in ghosting, by use
of optical compensation (Spec., Abstract, || 1—9). Claim 5, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
5. A display comprising:
video data interface adapted to receive video data and form
separate frames of first eye image data and a second eye
image data,
buffer adapted to receive and write into memory the image
data from the video data interface;
image compensator adapted to generate a compensated
second eye image data for display to a first eye that is
responsive only to the second eye image data and a
compensated first eye image data for display to a second eye
that is responsive only to the first eye image data; and
display controller adapted to cause the first eye image data
and the compensated second eye image data to be displayed
to the first eye, one after the other, and then to cause the
second eye image data and the compensated first eye image
data to be displayed to the second eye, one after the other.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Weitbruch
Cowan
Kim
Kawahara
US 2002/0196199 A1 Dec. 26, 2002
US 2006/0268104 A1 Nov. 30, 2006
US 2008/0151040 A1 June 26, 2008
US 2009/0237495 A1 Sept. 24, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-003187
Application 13/386,945
REJECTIONS
Claims 5—8, 10—12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Weitbruch, Kawahara, and Cowan (Final Act. 3—8).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weitbruch, Kawahara, Cowan, and Kim (Id. at 8—9).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 5—8, 10—12, and 14
Appellant contends their invention as recited in claims 5—8, 10—12,
and 14 is patentable over Weitbruch, Kawahara, and Cowan (App. Br. 11—
15). The issue presented by the arguments is—
Has the Examiner shown the combination of Weitbruch, Kawahara,
and Cowan teaches or suggests
[an] image compensator adapted to generate a compensated
second eye image data for display to a first eye that is responsive
only to the second eye image data and a compensated first eye
image data for display to a second eye that is responsive only to
the first eye image data; and
[a] display controller adapted to cause the first eye image data
and the compensated second eye image data to be displayed to
the first eye, one after the other, and then to cause the second eye
image data and the compensated first eye image data to be
displayed to the second eye, one after the other,
as recited in claim 5?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Weitbruch teaches a common sub-field (C’)
flashed to both eyes, which is “a common part of the video values of (R) and
(L)” (App. Br. 11 (citing Weitbruch || 38, 44)). Therefore, Appellant
argues, “the compensated images in Weitbruch all include image content of
3
Appeal 2016-003187
Application 13/386,945
the right and left eyes images” (id. at 11—12). In contrast, Appellant asserts,
claim 5 recites the image compensator generates “a compensated first eye
image data for display to a second eye that is responsive only to the first eye
image data” meaning “the compensate[d] image data to the second eye has
content which is a function of the first eye image data only” (id. at 12).
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner relies on Weitbrach to teach
[a] display controller adapted to cause the first eye image data
and the compensated second eye image data to be displayed to
the first eye, one after the other, and then to cause the second eye
image data and the compensated first eye image data to be
displayed to the second eye, one after the other ....
(Final Act. 4).
Weitbruch teaches displaying a first eye image data and a
compensated image data (the common image C’) and similarly, displaying a
second eye image data and a compensated image data (Weitbruch || 38-47).
Common image C’ is supplied to both the first and the second eye, thus,
although Weitbruch teaches a first eye image data and a second eye image
data displayed, the common image C’ does not teach the recited
“compensated second eye image data for display to a first eye” and
“compensated first eye image data for display to a second eye.” In
particular, Weitbruch fails to teach the four separate image data.
Additionally, we are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner has
not shown Weitbruch teaches the first eye image data and the compensated
second eye image data being displayed one after the other and the second
eye image data and the compensated first eye image data being displayed
one after the other (Reply Br. 4—5). In particular, in Weitbruch, the first eye
image data and the common image are supplied during a first period, and the
4
Appeal 2016-003187
Application 13/386,945
second eye image data and the common image are supplied during a second
period (Weitbruch 146, Fig. 6).
The Examiner further relies on Kawahara to teach
[an] image compensator adapted to generate a compensated
second eye image data for display to a first eye that is responsive
to the second eye image data and a compensated first eye image
data for display to a second eye that is responsive to the first eye
image data; and
[a] display controller adapted to cause the first eye image data
and the compensated second eye image data to be displayed to
the first eye, one after the other, and then to cause the second eye
image data and the compensated first eye image data to be
displayed to the second eye, one after the other ....
(Final Act. 4—5). Appellant argues Kawahara does not teach the disputed
image compensator limitation because Kawahara’s image compensator
provides complete black images which do not have image content data
“responsive only to the second eye image data” or “responsive only to the
first eye image data” (App. Br. 13).
As noted by Appellant, Kawahara teaches a left-eye image (first-eye)
comprises a first left-eye image frame and a second left-eye image frame
(Kawahara Tfl[ 39-41). Specifically, Kawahara teaches displaying “a first
left-eye frame LI and a second left-eye frame L2 which is a solid black
image sequentially in each time frames for a left-eye image” and similarly
for the right eye, displaying “a first right-eye frame [R] 1 and a second right-
eye frame R2 which is a solid black image sequentially in each time frames
for a right-eye image” {id. 139, Fig. 8). Thus, although Kawahara teaches
displaying a first and a second image to the left eye sequentially, and a first
and a second image to the right eye sequentially, Kawahara fails to teach the
5
Appeal 2016-003187
Application 13/386,945
recited compensated second eye image data and the compensated first eye
image data. In particular, Kawahara teaches the second image displayed to
each eye is “a solid black image” {id. 138, Fig. 8), not a compensated
second eye image data for display to a first eye and a compensated first eye
image data for display to a second eye. In addition, because the second
image displayed to the left eye in Kawahara is a solid black image, it is not
“responsive only to the second eye image data” and “responsive only to the
first eye image data.” Thus, although we agree with the Examiner that
Kawahara teaches displaying first eye image data and second eye image data
to the first eye, one after the other, the second eye image is not a
compensated second eye image data. Moreover, Kawahara does not teach a
compensated second eye image data and a compensated first eye image data,
are displayed, but instead teaches a solid black image is displayed.
Lastly, the Examiner relies on Cowan to teach
image compensator adapted to generate a compensated second
eye image data for display to a first eye that is responsive only to
the second eye image data and a compensated first eye image
data for display to a second eye that is responsive only to the first
eye image data.
(Final Act. 5 (emphasis added)). Appellant additionally asserts Cowan
teaches presentation of a single output image for a first eye that includes
compensation for ghosting, and a single output image for a second eye that
includes compensation for ghosting (App. Br. 13). Specifically, Appellant
contends Cowan teaches projecting a left-eye image and a right-eye image
“by removing an amount of ghost images leaking from the projected left eye
image into the project right eye image and from the projected right eye
image into the projected left eye image” {id. at 13—14 (quoting Cowan 110).
6
Appeal 2016-003187
Application 13/386,945
Thus, Appellant argues, Cowan does not generate the compensated eye
image data for display to the other eye (id. at 14). Moreover, Appellant
argues, Cowan does not teach an image compensator and display controller
that prepares and provides two images for each eye, one after the other, as
recited in the claim (id.). Instead, according to Appellant, Cowan teaches
subtracting ghost contribution of the left eye from the right-eye image to
generate a single right image to project and, thus, teaches projecting a
compensated right-eye image (and vice versa) (id.).
Cowan teaches a process for “producing right and left eye images that
are compensated for ghosting effects of a given system” (Cowan | 67). In
Cowan, left- and right-eye image data is received by a processor which
applies a linear transformation, computes ghost contribution from each eye
image, converts the compensated linear images into a non-linear form, and
outputs right- and left-eye images (id. H 67—68, 73—74). Thus, Cowan
teaches a display controller that causes a compensated right-eye image to be
displayed to a right eye and a compensated left-eye image to be displayed to
a left eye — one image for each eye. Although a compensated right-eye
image is displayed, the Examiner has not shown Cowan’s compensated
right-eye image displayed to the right eye is responsive only to the left eye.
Similarly, the Examiner has not shown Cowan’s compensated left-eye image
displayed to the left eye is responsive only to the right eye.
We thus agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown the
combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Specifically, the Examiner has not shown that Weitbruch, Kawahara, and
Cowan, taken alone or in proper combination, teach “a compensated second
eye image data for display to a first eye that is responsive only to the second
7
Appeal 2016-003187
Application 13/386,945
eye image data and a compensated first eye image data for display to a
second eye that is responsive only to the first eye image data,” as recited in
claim 5 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner has failed to
show the combination of Weitbruch, Kawahara, and Cowan teaches or
suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 5. Claims 6—8, 10-
12, and 14 stand with independent claim 5 from which they depend.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5—8, 10—12, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weitbruch, Kawahara,
and Cowan.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Weitbruch, Kawahara, Cowan, and Kim (Final Act. 8—9). Claim 9
depends from claim 5. The Examiner has not shown Kim cures the
deficiencies of Weitbruch, Kawahara, and Cowan. Therefore, for the
reasons set forth above, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weitbruch, Kawahara,
Cowan, and Kim.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5—8, 10—12, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weitbruch, Kawahara, and
Cowan is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Weitbruch, Kawahara, Cowan, and Kim is reversed.
REVERSED
8