Ex Parte Simmonds et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201411628092 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/628,092 11/30/2006 Michael David Simmonds 20439 2282 23389 7590 12/12/2014 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC 400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA SUITE 300 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 EXAMINER OWENS, DANELL L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/12/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MICHAEL DAVID SIMMONDS and MOHAMED SALIM VALERA ________________ Appeal 2013-001411 Application 11/628,092 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, GEORGE C. BEST, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6–8, 10–12, and 15–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a projection display. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A projection display, for displaying an image to a viewer, comprising: a first plate waveguide made of light transmissive material; an image-providing light source device arranged to inject image bearing light into the first plate waveguide; Appeal 2013-001411 Application 11/628,092 2 a transmission grating within the first plate waveguide; an input device within the first plate waveguide arranged to direct the image bearing light onto the transmission grating of the first plate waveguide; the transmission grating being arranged to direct said image bearing light internally along the first plate waveguide and to output the image bearing light from the first plate waveguide; and a second plate waveguide made of light transmissive and transparent material, said second plate waveguide includes a coupling grating arranged to receive the image bearing light from the first plate waveguide, said second plate waveguide further includes an exit grating arranged to diffract received image bearing light out of the second plate waveguide, wherein image bearing light is diffractively inputted into the first or second plate waveguide and diffractively outputted from the first or second plate waveguide and the diffractive input and diffractive output powers are substantially matched, and dispersion associated with the diffractive input is oppositely matched with dispersion associated with the diffractive output thereby causing the net chromatic dispersion to approach or substantially equal zero. The References Smith US 5,341,230 Aug. 23, 1994 Travis US 6,883,919 B2 Apr. 26, 2005 Weiss US 2006/0132914 A1 Jun. 22, 2006 Dorsel (Zeiss) (abstract) DE 42 11 728 A1 Oct. 14, 1993 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 3, 6–8, 10, 15, 17–19, 23, and 25 over Weiss in view of Travis, claims 11 and 12 over Weiss in view of Travis and Zeiss and claims 16, 20‒22, and 24 over Weiss in view of Travis and Smith. Appeal 2013-001411 Application 11/628,092 3 OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 20.1 Those claims require a projection display configured such that diffractive input and diffractive output powers of image-bearing light diffractively inputted into a first or second plate waveguide and diffractively outputted from the first or second plate waveguide are substantially matched, and dispersion associated with the diffractive input is oppositely matched with dispersion associated with the diffractive output, thereby causing the net chromatic dispersion to approach or substantially equal zero. Weiss discloses a projection display having first and second plate waveguides (1478, 1484) (¶ 330; Fig. 28). Travis discloses a flat panel display comprising a tapered slab (1) which introduces chromatic aberration (col. 2, ll. 40–48). Travis corrects the chromatic aberration by polishing the tapered slab (1)’s thick end at a 45º angle and/or inserting a 45º prism (3) with the same optical dispersion as the tapered slab (1) (col. 4, ll. 5–10; Fig. 4). The Examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the input and output gratings of Weiss making them oppositely matched as described in Travis in order to correct for chromatic aberration (col. 4 lines 6‒13)” (Final Rejection mailed Aug. 17, 2011, p. 4). 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Zeiss or Smith for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent claims (Final Rejection mailed Aug. 17, 2011, pp. 8-12). Appeal 2013-001411 Application 11/628,092 4 That argument is deficient in that the Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Travis’ disclosure of correcting chromatic aberration by polishing a tapered slab’s thick end at an angle of 45º and/or inserting a 45º prism (3) with the same optical dispersion as the tapered slab (col. 4, ll. 5‒10; Fig. 4) to be applicable to Weiss’ first and second plate waveguides. The Examiner states that “Travis was introduced only as a teaching to illustrate how chromatic aberration is corrected” (Ans. 3) and argues that “one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would know that having two materials with different abbe [sic, Abbe] numbers corrects for chromatic aberration. In the immediate instance, the first light guide (Weiss 1478 of fig. 28) would has [sic] a particular spectral aberration and to correct for that spectral aberration one would add a second light guide (Weiss 1484 of fig. 28) that would have a second [A]bbe number that is opposite of the [A]bbe number of the first light guide in order to correct for chromatic aberration thereby, creating an achromatic doublet” (Ans. 3‒4). That argument is unpersuasive as being unsupported by evidence. “‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner has not provided the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. Appeal 2013-001411 Application 11/628,092 5 DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 3, 6–8, 10, 15, 17– 19, 23, and 25 over Weiss in view of Travis, claims 11 and 12 over Weiss in view of Travis and Zeiss and claims 16, 20–22, and 24 over Weiss in view of Travis and Smith are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED sl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation