Ex parte Sorensen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2001

08353413 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2001)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TOM L. SORENSEN
____________
Appeal No. 1999-0299
Application No. 08/353,413
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, RUGGIERO, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-4, which
are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1999-0299
Application No. 08/353,413
-2-
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a vertically configured video projection system.
The system orients the video projectors 90 degrees from the conventional projectors and
reorients the video signals to compensate for the rotation so that the projectors may be
mounted in a cabinet along a wall. An understanding of the invention can be derived from
a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A video projection system comprising:
a housing;
a video chassis in said housing;
three video projection CRTs in said housing;
means on said video chassis for developing deflection signals for each of said
CRTs;
individual yokes mounted on the necks of said CRTs; and
means supporting said housing with said CRTs vertically aligned, said yokes being
positioned on said necks such that an offset horizontal display is produced on a projection
surface positioned forwardly of said vertically aligned CRTs.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Kline 4,352,124 Sep. 28, 1982
Appeal No. 1999-0299
Application No. 08/353,413
-3-
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kline.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 10, mailed Oct. 17, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed Feb. 4, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 9, filed Aug. 6, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 11, filed Nov. 15, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
From our review of the Kline reference, we agree with appellant that Kline alone
does not teach or suggest the vertical alignment and horizontal offset of the individual
Appeal No. 1999-0299
Application No. 08/353,413
-4-
projectors as recited in the language of claim 1. We find that the examiner’s reliance upon
columns 8 and 10 of Kline is in error and that the “off axis mode” does not teach or suggest
the claimed invention. Rather, this merely teaches the horizontal placement of the
projectors on opposite sides of the middle projector for symmetry and projecting from the
ceiling to the flat screen. Due to the examiner's reliance on Kline to teach or suggest the
vertical alignment of the projectors, the examiner has not provided evidence or a separate
line of reasoning for such a configuration. Since no line of reasoning is established by the
examiner and the prior art does not provide such a motivation, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 1-4.
Appeal No. 1999-0299
Application No. 08/353,413
-5-
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JLD:clm
Appeal No. 1999-0299
Application No. 08/353,413
-6-
Patent Department
Zenith Electronics Corp.
1000 Milwaukee Ave.
Glenview , IL 60025