Ex Parte Xu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2017

13667905 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 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.
13/667,905 11/02/2012 ShuangXu NVIDP705/SZ100203CN1US1 4538
75359 7590 02/03/2017
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- NVID
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
EXAMINER
PATEL, JITESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2017 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUANG XU
Appeal 2016-005468
Application 13/667,9051
Technology Center 2600
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 3—10, and 12—18, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. Claims 2 and 11 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies NVIDIA Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005468
Application 13/667,905
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a 3D display
system and 3D displaying method. Spec., 12.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a display device;
a detecting device configured to detect a viewing position
of a viewer, wherein the detecting device comprises a detecting
signal transmitter disposed on three-dimensional (3D) glasses
and a detecting signal receiver that receives a signal from the
detecting signal transmitter to determine the viewing position;
and
a control device configured to:
convert a video frame onto a virtual plane
perpendicular to a visual line of the viewing position,
map the converted video frame onto a display plane
of the display device to generate a 3D image for display;
and
cause the 3D image to be displayed on the display
device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Maxson et al.
Son et al.
Cheng
Abelow
US 2010/0053310 Al
US 2010/0201790 Al
US 2011/0316847 Al
US 2012/0069131 Al
Mar. 4,2010
Aug. 12, 2010
Dec. 29, 2011
Mar. 22, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Son in view of Maxson. Final Act. 3—6.
2
Appeal 2016-005468
Application 13/667,905
Claims 3—5 and 12—14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Son in view of Maxson and Cheng.
Final Act. 6—9.
Claims 6—9 and 15—18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Son in view of Maxson, Cheng, and
Abelow. Final Act. 9—12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 3—12), (2) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and (3) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 2—10).
We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference
unless otherwise noted.2 3However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
teaches or suggests “convert[ing] a video frame onto a virtual plane
2 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellant and the
positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 18,
2015); the Reply Brief (filed May 2, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed
May 18, 2015); the Advisory Action (mailed Sept. 10, 2015); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed Mar. 2, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-005468
Application 13/667,905
perpendicular to a visual line of the viewing position,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 6. According to Appellant, the prior art, unlike
the claimed invention, will not result in a video frame that “will appear the
same to all viewers regardless of viewing position.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis
added); see also App. Br. 12 (“In other words, the claimed limitations cause
the video frame to appear the same to all viewers regardless of viewing
position by distorting the video frame such that, when viewed at an angle to
the display device, the video frame appears undistorted.”) (emphasis added).
The Examiner concludes the claims do not recite what Appellant
argues. Ans. 4—9. Instead, the Examiner concludes the claim “merely
recite[s] detecting a viewing position of a (single) viewer and converting a
(single) video frame onto a virtual plane perpendicular to a visual line of the
detected viewing position of the (single) viewer.” Ans. 5 (emphasis
omitted); see also Ans. 8 (“The above cited limitations in claim 1 merely
recite detecting a viewing position of a (single) viewer and converting a
(single) video frame onto a virtual plane perpendicular to a visual line of the
detected viewing position of the (single) viewer.” (emphasis omitted)).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant concedes that “[t]he Examiner is correct
that the claims do not explicitly include these limitations, but this description
was merely provided to illustrate the difference between converting a video
frame and generating a new image based on new rendering parameters (e.g.,
virtual camera positions) as taught by Son.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
4
Appeal 2016-005468
Application 13/667,905
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Based on the ordinary meaning of the words of the claims—including
Appellant’s concession in the Reply Brief—we agree with the Examiner that
the claims do not require the video frame to appear the same to all viewers
regardless of viewing position. Because Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the first time that Son does
not teach or suggest the claim limitation “convert a video frame.” Reply Br.
5—6. Appellant’s new argument focuses on whether Son converts an image
or generates a new image. Id. That is distinct from the argument presented
in the Appeal Brief, which focused on whether a converted video image was
converted “onto a virtual plane perpendicular to a visual line of the viewing
position” so that it could be viewed by all viewers. Compare Reply Br. 5—6
(focusing on the term convert), with App. Br. 10—12 (focusing on whether
“the video frame will appear the same to all viewers regardless of viewing
position”). Because Appellant’s argument was presented for the first time in
the reply brief and good cause has not been shown why it was not argued
earlier, it has been waived. See 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2); see also Optivus
Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (issue waived for the first time in a reply brief is waived).
5
Appeal 2016-005468
Application 13/667,905
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claim 10, which is argued on the same grounds. See
App. Br. 13-14.
With respect to dependent claims 3—9 and 12—18, Appellant merely
contends that because the additional references used in the rejections of
these claims (Chang and Abelow) do not cure the shortcomings of the other
references applied against claim 1, the Examiner failed to make a prima
facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 14. Because we
determine that the rejection of claim 1 is not erroneous for the reasons
discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1, 3—10, and 12—18.
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). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6