Ex Parte Van Der Horst et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13504992 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/504,992 04/30/2012 Jan Van Der Horst 2009P00754WOUS 2832
24737 7590 03/01/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue HARRISON, CHANTE E
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAN VAN DER HORST and
HENRICUS JOSEPH CORNELUS KUIJPERS
Appeal 2016-006823
Application 13/504,992
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006823
Application 13/504,992
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4—15, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a]n autostereoscopic display device”
with its “display output provided over at least two sub-frames, with different
pixel elements operated in the different sub-frames.” (Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative:
1. An autostereoscopic display comprising:
a display panel (3) having an array of pixels arranged in rows
and columns, for producing a display output, each of the pixels
comprising at least two subpixels,
an imaging arrangement (9) for directing the output from
different subpixels to different spatial positions so as to enable
an autostereoscopic view of the display output; and
a controller for controlling the output from the sub-pixels
such that:
in a frame time comprising a first and second sub-frame time,
the display panel (3) produces a frame of the display output,
wherein in the first sub-frame time, a first set of sub-pixels is
driven thereby providing a first lower resolution sub-frame, and
in the second sub-frame time, a second set of sub-pixels different
from the first set of sub-pixels is driven thereby providing a
second lower resolution sub-frame, and
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party
in interest. (See App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal 2016-006823
Application 13/504,992
wherein the first and second sub-frames together provide a
complete, higher resolution frame with the information for
enabling its autostereoscopic view, such that the complete frame
resolution is built up in a sequence.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Philips (EP 2,085,961 Al; published Aug. 5,
2009). (See Final Act. 3-9.)
2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Philips and Redert (US 2010/0245406 Al; published
Sept. 30, 2010). (See Final Act. 9-10.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejections under Section 103(a) are
in error because:
Philips fails to teach “wherein in the first sub-frame time, a first
set of sub-pixels is driven thereby providing a first lower
resolution sub-frame, and in the second sub-frame time, a second
set of sub-pixels different from the first set of sub-pixels is driven
thereby providing a second lower resolution sub-frame, and
wherein the first and second sub-frames together provide a
complete, higher resolution frame with the information for
enabling its autostereoscopic view, such that the complete frame
resolution is built up in a sequence,” as claimed.
(App. Br. 8, emphasis omitted.)
The Examiner finds this limitation met in Philips because, in the
context of an LCD display with a lenticular lens, it teaches that “pixels are
2 A rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been
withdrawn. (See Ans. 9.)
3
Appeal 2016-006823
Application 13/504,992
split into pixel halves as a method to provide viewing angle improvement by
setting each pixel half to a different intensity selected such that the gamma
curve is better.” (Philips 140; Fig. 8.) The reference further explains that in
order to address the problem of “spatial application of integration of two
intensities of the two pixel halves [not combining] well with tile spatial
interleaving of views as used for 3D displays,” the “two intensities are
shown in a time-sequential manner in two time-sequential sub-frames.” {Id.
141.) In other words, the sets of pixel halves are illuminated in sequence.
Appellants argue “Philips teaches that the image brightness is built up
in a sequence of sub-frames rather than the image resolution being built up
in a sequence of sub-frames, as claimed in the present invention.” (App. Br.
7—8.) Appellants also argue that “because the Philips sub-pixels are
identical, they cannot add resolution — they can only alter the brightness of
the existing pixels resolution.” {Id. at 8.)
We are not persuaded of error because Appellants have not shown
why Philips’ sub-pixel sets driven in sequential sub-frames would not
provide increased resolution in the same way as Appellants’ sub-pixel sets
driven in sequential sub-frames. One of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that Philips’s two sub-frames considered together would provide
double the resolution (pixels per unit area) as each individual sub-frame.
This is the same mechanism described by Appellants. {See Spec. 19:24—28
(“[T]wo triplets of sub-pixels per pixel, i.e. half of the sub-pixels are driven
in one sub-frame and the other half of the sub-pixels are driven in the next
sub-frame. In this way, a high frame rate and high intensity of the display
are used to enable a higher (vertical) resolution in the pixel column direction
to be achieved.”).) While it is true that Philips drives the sub-pixel sets
4
Appeal 2016-006823
Application 13/504,992
sequentially for the stated purpose of compensating for variations in
intensities caused by the slanted lenticular, the claim language identified by
Appellants is nevertheless met, as the first and second sub-frames in Philips
do combine to provide a higher resolution frame.
We accordingly sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1
and 12 and, as Appellants do not argue claims 2, 4—11, and 13—15
separately, we sustain the rejection of those claims as well.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4—15 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5