Ex Parte Whangbo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

13560484 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
13/560,484 07/27/2012 Sang-Woo Whangbo P4982US00 6374
58027 7590 12/01/2017
H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
CHUNG, DAVID Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2017 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):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANG-WOO WHANGBO
and MYUNG-HWAN KIM
Appeal 2017-002860
Application 13/560,484
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1 and 3—5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Final Action mailed April 9, 2015 (“Final
Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed December 10, 2015 (“Br.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 1, 2016 (“Ans.”). Appellants did not file a
Reply Brief.
2 Appellants identify Samsung Display Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002860
Application 13/560,484
The claims are directed to an autostereoscopic 3D display apparatus.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An autostereoscopic 3D display apparatus comprising:
a display panel comprising an array of pixels arranged in
rows and columns, the pixels arranged at the odd-numbered rows
being basic pixels of four colors arranged repeatedly, the pixels
arranged at the even-numbered rows being the pixels arranged at
each odd-numbered row starting from the third pixel; and
a lenticular device disposed in front of the display panel,
the lenticular device comprising an array of a plurality of
lenticular components extending in parallel with a slant line
slanted at an angle of tan1 (a/mb) with regard to columns of the
pixels, where m refers to the number of adjacent rows before an
identical viewpoint on the same slant line appears, and a and b
refer to horizontal and vertical lengths, respectively, of each
pixel,
wherein:
when n is 0 or a natural number, the number of viewpoints
is 2m{2n+\), pixels corresponding to the given viewpoints are
repeated at every m row in each lenticular component, the
number of parallel lines extending through pixels in parallel with
the slant line within each lenticular component is identical to the
number of viewpoints, and each of the parallel lines lies on the
repeated basic pixels; and
the four colors comprise red, green, blue, and one of white, cyan,
and magenta.
Br. 10 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2017-002860
Application 13/560,484
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Konuma et al.
(“Konuma”)
Chapman
Kim et al. (“Kim”)
Jung
US 5,541,749
US 2010/0091206 Al
US 2010/0123860 Al
US 8,471,968 B2
July 30, 1996
Apr. 15,2010
May 20, 2010
June 25, 2013
REJECTIONS3
The Examiner maintains and Appellants seek review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1 and 3 over Chapman in
view of Kim and Konuma; and (2) claims 4 and 5 over Chapman in view of
Kim and Konuma, and further in view of Jung. Final Act. 2—9; Br. 6.
OPINION
Appellants argue patentability of the claims as a group. Br. 6. Claims 3—5
will stand or fall with independent claim 1. Id.', see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Chapman teaches an autostereoscopic display
device having a slanted lenticular lens and other features found in claim 1.
Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that Kim teaches repeatedly arranged
pixel rows comprising red, green, blue, and white pixels. Id. The Examiner
finds that Kim further teaches that a color filter pattern having only red,
green, and blue color filters may transmit only 33% of incident light. Id.
3 Appellants’ June 8, 2015 amendment withdrawing claims 6, 8—12, 16—18,
20, and 21, entered for purposes of this appeal (Advisory Action mailed
August 26, 2015), renders the Examiner’s rejection of those claims moot.
3
Appeal 2017-002860
Application 13/560,484
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the autostereoscopic
display of Chapman with the pixel arrangement of Kim in order to increase
transmittance of incident light. Id. at 2—3.
The Examiner finds that Konuma teaches pixels arranged at odd
numbered rows are pixels of four colors arranged repeatedly, and pixels
arranged at even numbered rows are arranged as in odd numbered rows
starting at the third pixel. Id. at 3. In other words, if the first (odd
numbered) row has pixels R, G, B, W, R, G, B, W,. . ., the second (even
numbered) row has pixels B, W, R, G, B, W, R, G,. . ., making each color
placed most distantly from another same color. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify Chapman to include the arrangement of pixels
disclosed in Konuma in order to allow the four colors to each appear at an
equal probability at any position. Id. (citing Konuma col. 5,11. 22—25.).
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to the skilled
artisan to combine the teachings of Kim and Konuma with those of
Chapman for two reasons: (1) Konuma displays white as “the opaque state
corresponding to the scattered state of the liquid crystal molecules,” thus the
addition of Kim’s separate white color filter pattern in unnecessary; and (2)
Kim’s white color filter pattern cannot be substituted for the black dye layer
of Konuma because, to create a panel that operates in a reflection mode, the
additional black dye layer is required to express black color, and modifying
Konuma with Kim’s white color would render Konuma unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. Br. 6—7.
4
Appeal 2017-002860
Application 13/560,484
Appellants’ arguments do not address the Examiner’s rejection which
is based on modifying the display of Chapman with teachings from Kim, and
further modifying the modified display with the teachings of Konuma. See
Ans. 2—3. The Examiner’s rejection is not based on modifying Konuma
with Kim’s teachings. Ans. 2—A. Appellants misconstrue the Examiner’s
rejection, and in so doing, fail to show that the Examiner reversible errs. Id.
On appeal, the appellant must not only show the existence of error, but also
that the error was harmful because it affected the decision below. In re
Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shinseki v.
Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) (“the burden of showing that an error is
harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s determination.”
(citations omitted))).
Appellants also argue that, because Konuma teaches a fourth color of
black rather than white, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would not have utilized the teaching of Konuma to shift the black
color by two columns in adjacent rows to arrive at the claimed arrangement
of shifting a white color. Br. 7. As the Examiner explains, the teaching of
Konuma is not limited to a four color display containing black, but is equally
applicable to any four color display. Ans. 4. It is well within the ability of
the ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute one known element for another to
yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
401 (2007).
The Examiner notes that Appellants state that neither Konuma nor
Kim relate to 3D viewing, but do not provide any reasoning or argument
why this fact would preclude modification of Chapman with the teachings of
Kim and Konuma. Ans. 4.
5
Appeal 2017-002860
Application 13/560,484
On the record before us, Appellants do not show that the Examiner
reversibly errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Chapman in view of Kim
and Konuma. Claims 3—5 stand rejected with claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—5 is 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) (2015).
AFFIRMED
6