Ex parte Spector

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 9, 1997

08048109 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 9, 1997)

Application for patent filed April 15, 1993.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DONALD SPECTOR
____________
Appeal No. 95-4351
Application 08/048,1091
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before URYNOWICZ, MARTIN and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1-3, which are all of appellant's pending
Appeal No. 95-4351
Application 08/048,109
-2-
claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over prior art. We
reverse.
The claimed invention is an audio-visual display system
for presenting a series of still pictures in synchronism with the
playback of one or more recorded audio programs. The audio
program information includes audio-frequency cue signals for
controlling the visual display apparatus, which is in the form of
a circular disk rotated by a stepping motor.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, reads as follows:
1. An audio-visual system which makes it possible for
a user to see during successive time periods a still image of a
particular subject while listening to a program related thereto;
said system comprising:
a. an audio-record player having a loud speaker and an
output jack to which are both fed signals derived from the record
being played;
b. a record to be played by the player having a
recording thereof of a series of programs producing signals that
lie in the sonic range, each related to a different subject, each
program being preceded by a cue signal recording that lies in a
range outside the sonic range; and
c. a viewer unit for successively presenting to the
eyes of the user at a viewing position a series of a film frames,
each having an image of a subject corresponding to a subject in a
respective program in the recording, said unit including a
stepping motor responsive only to each cue signal yielded at the
output jack to advance to the viewing position, the image frames
being supported in a circular disc that is rotated by the
stepping motor, said stepping motor being provided with a control
circuit having an input jack coupled to the output jack of the
player through a high-pass filter that rejects said sonic signals
and passes said cue signals, said control circuit supplying
Appeal No. 95-4351
Application 08/048,109
Hattori is incorrectly identified as "Horvat" in the Answer2
(at 3).
-3-
operating power activating said motor each time said cue signal
is received thereby, said high-pass filter being interposed
between the input jack and the control circuit to reject signals
in the audio range and to pass the supersonic cue signals, said
viewing unit being provided with the straps so as to be supported
on the head of the user.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Cannon 3,851,116 Nov. 26, 1974
Horvath 3,963,335 June 15, 1976
Taylor 4,277,152 July 7, 1981
Hattori 4,636,866 Jan. 13, 1987
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable
for obviousness over Taylor in view of Cannon, Horvath and
Hattori.2
Taylor discloses means for advancing a film strip in a
projector in response to the detection of cue signals recorded on
an audio tape, such as an audio cassette (col. 1, lines 29-52).
No other information about the cue signals, such as the
frequency, is disclosed. The film images are projected onto a
projection screen (col. 2, lines 66-68).
Cannon discloses the use of ultrasonic cue signals
(col. 7, lines 7-55) which are recovered by filtering and used to
control the speed and position of a magnetic tape, which may
Appeal No. 95-4351
Application 08/048,109
-4-
include audio, slow-scan video, digital, or analog information
(col. 1, lines 17-21).
Horvath discloses an audio-visual system in which
audio-visual cartridges are inserted into a housing that
resembles a television set and has a rear-projection screen. The
cartridge contains a circular disc on which photographic images
are recorded and an endless magnetic tape on which are recorded
audio signals and control signals. Detection of a control signal
results in a brake pawl being momentarily removed from one of the
brake notches in the edge of the circular disc, thereby allowing
the disc to be rotated by the drive motor to the next brake notch
so as to display the next picture (col. 7, lines 13-39). The
drive motor is a continuous motor rather than a stepping motor.
Hattori discloses goggles which include liquid-crystal
display devices and earphones. The audio and video signals may
be provided by television receiving circuitry.
The examiner also contends that it is well known in the
art to use a stepping motor in a film projector (Answer at 4).
Assuming for the sake of argument that it would have
been obvious in view of Cannon to record Taylor's cue signals as
ultrasonic signals which are separable from the audio information
by means of a high pass filter, we are not persuaded that it also
Appeal No. 95-4351
Application 08/048,109
-5-
would have been obvious in view of Horvath and Hattori to replace
Taylor's photographic film strip, projection apparatus, and
projection screen with a circular photographic film disk and
head-mounted viewer, as required by the claim. Specifically, we
agree with appellant that the artisan would not have considered
Hattori's head-mounting technique, which is applied to liquid
crystal display devices, to be applicable to the display of
images recorded on a photographic film disc of the type disclosed
by Horvath. The only motivation for combining the reference
teachings in this manner comes from appellant's disclosure. See
In re Laskowski, 871 F.2d 115, 117, 10 USPQ2d 1397, 1398 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) (something in the references as a whole must suggest
the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is reversed,
as is the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3.
REVERSED

STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Appeal No. 95-4351
Application 08/048,109
-6-
JOHN C. MARTIN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Michael Ebert
c/o Hopgood, Calimafde, Kalil,
Blaustein & Judlowe
60 E. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165