Ex parte TORIZUKA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 6, 1998

08149361 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 6, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 9, 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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MASAMI TORIZUKA,
YOSHIRO MURAOKA and
RENSHI NAKAMURA
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,3611
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
2
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-15 and
17-19. Claims 4, 7-9 and 16 stand withdrawn from
consideration by the examiner as being directed to a
nonelected invention.
The disclosed invention pertains to a liquid crystal
display system having first and second displays for providing
images respectively to the left and right eyes of a viewer.
More particularly, the system has a video signal supplying
means which includes a single driver circuit for providing a
common drive signal to both of the first and second displays.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A liquid crystal display system comprising:
a pair of first and second liquid crystal displays for
providing respective images to left and right eyes;
video signal supplying means for supplying a video
signal corresponding to an image to the liquid crystal
displays, said video signal supplying means including a single
driver circuit which provides a common drive signal to both
said first and second liquid crystal displays;
display controlling means for receiving said video
signal and for controlling said first and second liquid
crystal displays in response to an input control signal
supplied in accordance with the video signal by producing a
timing control signal to command one of a write operation to
write the video signal into said first and second liquid
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
3
crystal displays, and a hold operation to inhibit the write
operation and instead to cause said first and second liquid
crystal displays to hold a previous signal of a previous
field; and
distributing means for receiving said timing signal
from said controlling means and for distributing said timing
control signal between the pair of said first and second
liquid crystal displays.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Suntola 4,907,862 Mar. 13, 1990
Fujisawa et al. (Fujisawa) 4,926,166 May 15, 1990
Sakariassen 5,032,912 July 16, 1991
Shirochi 5,155,477 Oct. 13, 1992
Nakayoshi et al. (Nakayoshi) 5,357,277 Oct. 18, 1994
(filed Sep. 28,
1992)
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-13, 15 and 17-19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
collective teachings of Shirochi, Fujisawa and Sakariassen, or
the collective teachings of Shirochi, Fujisawa and Nakayoshi.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on either
combination of teachings cited above, in further view of
Suntola.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
4
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants'
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-15 and 17-19.
Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
5
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references
to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem
from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art
as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657,
664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by
the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
1. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6,
10-13, 15 and 17-19 as unpatentable
over the teachings of Shirochi,
Fujisawa and Sakariassen.
These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 7],
and we shall consider claim 1 as the representative claim.
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
6
The examiner cites Shirochi as teaching a liquid crystal
display system in which a controller receives a video input
signal from a video tape recorder (VTR) and control signals
for controlling write and hold actions. Shirochi was also
cited by appellants as a teaching in generating noiseless
speed change reproduction in a VTR. Shirochi does not
disclose a display for each eye of the viewer. The examiner
cites Sakariassen as teaching the feature of separate displays
for the left and right eyes, and the examiner asserts the
obviousness of combining the teachings of Sakariassen with
those of Shirochi. This combination still lacks the
recitation in claim 1 of a single driver circuit. The
examiner cites Fujisawa as a teaching of a single driver for
driving two displays. According to the examiner, the
collective teachings of these three references meet all the
limitations recited in claim 1.
Although appellants make three specific arguments of
error in the examiner’s position, we are primarily concerned
with the error designated as the second error by appellants.
This error relates to the propriety of using Fujisawa in the
manner suggested by the examiner. Appellants argue that
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
7
Fujisawa does not meet or suggest the recitation in claim 1 of
a “single driver circuit which provides a common drive signal
to both said first and second liquid crystal displays” [brief,
page 11]. Appellants point out that Fujisawa applies one
drive signal to the CRT (CRT SYNC SIGNAL) and a different
drive signal to the LCD (LCD DRIVER CONTROL SIGNAL). The
examiner responds that the single driver circuit in Fujisawa
(controller 4) provides a common drive signal to drive both
the CRT and the LCD [answer, page 11].
Notwithstanding the examiner’s assertion to the
contrary, Fujisawa does not suggest the single driver circuit
providing a common drive signal to two displays. Although the
controller in Fujisawa may generate the drive signals based on
a common video input signal, the output of the controller is
in the form of two different drive signals as argued by
appellants. It appears to be the examiner’s position that
since the video drive signals are derived from the same input
signals, then the recitations of the independent claims are
satisfied. However, the drive signals exist at the output of
the controller and not at the input. As pointed out by
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
8
appellants, the two displays in Fujisawa receive separate
drive signals rather that a common drive signal as claimed.
In view of the above remarks, the examiner has either
failed to properly interpret the claim language or has
improperly interpreted the teachings of Fujisawa or perhaps
both. Therefore, the examiner has failed to properly address
the obviousness of the claimed recitation of providing a
common drive signal to both displays using a single driver
circuit. In the absence of this explanation, we agree with
appellants that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of the obviousness of the invention set forth in
the appealed claims. In light of the above
observations, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6,
10-13, 15 and 17-19 cannot be sustained.
2. The rejection of claim 14 as
unpatentable over the teachings of
Shirochi, Fujisawa, Sakariassen and
Suntola.
Claim 14 depends from independent claim 11 considered
above. The additional citation of Suntola does not cure the
deficiencies in the combined teachings of Shirochi, Fujisawa
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
9
and Sakariassen discussed above. Therefore, this rejection of
claim 14 is also not sustained.
3. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6,
10-13, 15 and 17-19 as unpatentable
over the teachings of Shirochi,
Fujisawa and Nakayoshi.
This rejection is similar to the first rejection
discussed above except that Nakayoshi is now cited instead of
Sakariassen. The examiner cites Nakayoshi for the exact same
reason as Sakariassen, that is, as a teaching of a
stereoscopic image LCD for the left and right eyes of a
viewer. Since the examiner relies on Fujisawa for the same
reasons discussed above, and since the examiner’s reasons have
been found to be erroneous, we also do not sustain this
separate rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-13, 15 and 17-19.
The additional separate rejection of dependent claim 14 based
on this combination of references with Suntola added is
deficient for the same reasons already discussed.

Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
10
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-15 and 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting these claims is reversed.
REVERSED
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
11
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Ronald P. Kananen
MARKS & MURASE
2001 L Street, N.W.
Suite 750
Washington, DC 20036