Ex Parte Yamauchi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201411608097 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte TSUYOSHI YAMAUCHI, MASACHIKA WATANABE, TOMOKO KUMASAWA, MAKIO KURASHIGE, AKIKO KITAMURA, MITSURU KITAMURA, and KENJI UEDA1 ________________ Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before RICHARD TORCZON, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Real Party-in-Interest is Dai Nippon Printing Company, Ltd. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 2 SUMMARY Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-15. Specifically, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Ueda et al. (US 7,132,200 B1, November 7, 2006) (“Ueda”), with official notice being taken of Thomas et al. (US 2004/0130762 A1, July 8, 2004) (“Thomas”). Claims 2, 4, 11, and 13 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Ueda and Moss et al. (US 5,016,953, May 21, 1991) (“Moss”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a process by which a multi-image type hologram, wherein one three-dimensional image changes over to another depending on a viewing direction, can be fabricated in simple construction and a multi-image type hologram fabricated by that process. Abstract. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Independent claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method for fabricating a multi-image type hologram wherein one image changes over to another depending on a viewing direction, said method comprising: Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 3 dividing a hologram recording material into a plurality of sub-areas such that objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas, using reference light having an identical angle of incidence, thereby making a first-stage hologram; and simultaneously reconstructing images of said objects recorded in the sub areas from the recorded first-stage hologram, such that a material for recording a second-stage hologram is located near the reconstructed object images to make a reflection or transmission type volume hologram. App. Br. 17. ISSUES AND ANALYSES A. Claim 1 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Ueda teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “dividing a hologram recording material into a plurality of subareas such that objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas.” App. Br. 10. Analysis Appellants argue that, in an exemplary embodiment of their claimed invention, the recording area of H1 recording material is divided into a plurality of sub-areas, each having an object recorded in it. App. Br. 10 (citing Spec., Figs. l(a), 1(b) and l(c)). According to Appellants, if one assumes that the recording material 21 of Ueda corresponds to the claimed hologram recording material, the recording material 21 is not divided into a Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 4 plurality of sub-areas such that objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas. App. Br. 10. Instead, argue Appellants, Ueda requires three differentially-sensitive materials to record one object 20 (citing Ueda, Fig. 5 and col. 2, ll. 42-48). Alternatively, argue Appellants, even if one assumes that the Examiner correctly found that the three differentially sensitive materials 21 of Ueda correspond to Appellants’ claimed different sub-areas in the recording material 21, Ueda still fails to teach or suggest that the objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the sub- areas of Ueda’s recording material 21. App. Br. 10. Instead, argue Appellants, only one object (object 20 in Fig. 5 of Ueda) is recorded in the sub-areas of the recording material 21. Therefore, argue Appellants, Ueda fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1. Appellants also argue that the Examiner misapprehends Ueda. App. Br. 13. According to Appellants, Ueda is not directed to creating a hologram which changes depending on the user’s viewing angle; rather, Ueda is directed to displaying the same image in different colors depending upon the viewing angle. App. Br. 13 (citing Ueda, col. 2, ll. 42-64). Appellants therefore conclude that Ueda fails to teach at least “objects to be displayed on different images,” or the use of a plurality of objects. App. Br. 13. Furthermore, argue Appellants, Ueda specifically teaches using a plurality of sensitive materials 21 to record images, and then using “treble exposure ... at varying recording wavelengths.” App. Br. 12. Appellants contend that these images are used one at a time to reconstruct the holograms on a second sensitive material 23. App. Br. 12-13. Appellants Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 5 therefore argue that Ueda fails to teach simultaneously reconstructing multiple objects in the claimed manner. App. Br. 13. Moreover, argue Appellants, although the Examiner correctly conceded that Ueda does not explicitly disclose that the first-stage holograms are simultaneously reconstructed, the Examiner erred in taking official notice of Thomas et al. to find that simultaneously reconstructing multiple holograms was well-known in the art. App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, Thomas discloses reproducing holographic interference fringes displayed on a phase modulation device, not a hologram having an object actually recorded in it. Appellants contend that, by merely disclosing illuminating a holographic substrate, it is not reasonable to assert that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disclose or suggest “simultaneously reconstructing images of said objects recorded in the sub-areas from the recorded first-stage hologram.” App. Br. 11. Appellants argue that it was not known in the contemporary art to form a first-stage hologram and then make a second hologram by “simultaneously reconstructing images of said objects recorded in the sub areas form the recorded first stage hologram.” App. Br. 12. Appellants argue further that, according to the MPEP, “[i]t would not be appropriate for the examiner to take official notice of facts without citing a prior art reference where the facts asserted to be well known are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known” and that “[i]t is never appropriate to rely solely on ‘common knowledge’ in the art without evidentiary support in the record, as the principal evidence upon which a rejection was based.” App. Br. 12 (quoting MPEP § 2144.03). Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to present at least an Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 6 adequate evidentiary basis for the assertion that the holograms are simultaneously reconstructed. App. Br. 12. The Examiner responds that Ueda teaches a holographic recording medium which comprises three sensitive materials that are formed as different layers within the recording medium. Ans. 9 (citing, e.g., Ueda, Figs. 5, 7). The Examiner finds that the different layers are sequentially recorded to form red, green, and blue holograms, respectively, and that each color sensitive material corresponds to one sub-area that displays a different image (i.e., an image of a different color). Ans. 9. As such, finds the Examiner, the hologram recording material 21 comprises a plurality of sub- areas (i.e., three color sensitive layers) such that objects to be displayed on different images (e.g., the image corresponding to the different colors) are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas (i.e., each colored object is sequentially recorded in the proper holographic material sensitive to that particular wavelength). Ans. 9-10 (citing Ueda, Figs. 5, 7, col. 2, ll. 42-64). The Examiner also finds that Ueda teaches the claimed method for fabricating a full-color multi-image hologram. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that Ueda teaches a multiple-color hologram (recorded in substrate 21) that is used to record a second holographic sensitive material (23) but does not expressly disclose that the holograms are simultaneously reconstructed. Id. According to the Examiner, official notice was taken of Thomas only to the extent of teaching that simultaneous reconstruction of a color hologram is known in the art. Id. The Examiner states that the Thomas reference was provided as evidentiary support to show that it was well-known in the art at the time of the claimed invention to replay a Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 7 complete original of a true-color hologram by replaying the multiple-color holograms simultaneously. Ans. 10. The Examiner also finds that Ueda teaches creating a hologram that changes depending on a user’s viewing angle using the second sensitive material 23, and that the color of the hologram changes depending on an observer’s viewing position. Ans. 11-12. The Examiner finds that Thomas teaches using white light (including red, blue, and green wavelengths) to reconstruct a hologram and that because white light is used, the red, green, and blue holograms are reconstructed simultaneously. Ans. 10-11. We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. Ueda explicitly teaches: [M]ethod[s] in which hologram recording is made using a hologram recording film 61 on which materials 62, 63 and 64 sensitive to blue, green and red light are printed in a mosaic pattern. Alternatively, the hologram recording film may be exposed to blue, green and red light during hologram recording, while it is masked. Ueda, col. 13, ll. 6-11; see also Ueda, Fig. 20. The language of Ueda specifying that materials sensitive to different light wavelengths which are “printed in a mosaic pattern” or “masked” teaches that the recording material is “divided into a plurality of sub-areas such that objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas” as required by claim 1. Figure 20 of Ueda similarly depicts the recording surface “divid[ed] . . . into a plurality of sub-areas” (viz., areas sensitive to red, blue, or green wavelengths) segregated in either the planar or thickness dimensions of the recording surface such that objects to be Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 8 displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub areas. Ueda, Fig. 20. Appellants’ argument that Ueda fails to teach or suggest that objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the alleged sub-areas of Ueda’s recording material 21 is not persuasive. See App. Br. 10-11. Appellants argue that only one object is recorded in the alleged sub-areas of the recording material and that therefore Ueda fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. However, the claim language does not explicitly require that different objects be recorded within the different sub-areas. Nor does Ueda explicitly require that the same object be recorded at each of the different wavelengths. The contested language of claim 1 recites: (1) “objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas”; and (2) “one image changes over to another depending on a viewing direction.” With respect to the former limitation, although Ueda describes only a “visual object,” (i.e., a cone) we conclude that an artisan of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include more than one item in the “visual object” being recorded (i.e., two cones) or to substitute one visual object for another when recording at different wavelengths (e.g., a sphere or a cone). Moreover, because Ueda teaches that the visual object will be recorded under different wavelengths to areas of the recording materials that are sensitive to those wavelengths, Ueda teaches that the objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas. See, e.g., Ueda, col. 8, ll. 18-24. With respect to the latter limitation, we agree with the Examiner that Ueda explicitly teaches the limitation of claim 1 reciting “one image Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 9 changes over to another depending on a viewing direction.” Ueda teaches a method for fabricating a multi-image type hologram wherein one image changes over to another depending on viewing direction (i.e., the color of the object differs depending upon the viewing angle). See Ueda, col. 2, ll. 42-64. The claim term “image” is not explicitly defined by Appellants, and therefore the Examiner may give the term its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, we find that the Examiner reasonably found that the limitation reciting “one image changes over to another depending on a viewing direction” can reasonably be construed to correspond to Ueda’s teaching of an object appearing in different colors when viewed at different angles. Nor are we persuaded by Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s taking official notice of the Thomas reference. Section 2144.03 of the MPEP states that: “an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on “common knowledge” in making a rejection, however such rejections should be judiciously applied.” MPEP § 2144.03. The MPEP continues: “[o]fficial notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. Id. (citing In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970)(emphasis added)). In this case, the Examiner first took official notice of the disputed limitation in the non- final rejection and supported the official notice with the Thomas reference in the final rejection. Consequently we find that the Examiner has Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 10 supported his finding with documentary evidence, viz., the teachings of Thomas. Paragraph [0040] of Thomas, cited by the Examiner) states that: Once recorded, it is possible to either replay the holographic images as 3-D phase or amplitude plots on a two- dimensional display or to replay the complete original recorded wave using a phase change crystal and white light or laser light to replay the original image. The original image is replayed by writing it in the phase-change medium with lasers, and either white light or another laser is used to replay it. By recording an image with three different colors of laser and combining the replayed images, it is possible to make a true-color hologram. By continuously writing and replaying a series of images, it is possible to form holographic motion pictures. Since these images are digitally recorded, they can also be broadcast with radio frequency (RF) waves (e.g., microwave) or over a digital network of fibers or cables using suitable digital encoding technology, and replayed at a remote site. This effectively allows holographic television and motion pictures or “Holo Vision.” Thomas ¶ [0040]. Even if it might have been procedurally preferable for the Examiner to cite Thomas as a direct reference in rejecting claim 1, we discern no prejudicial error on the merits by the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner’s finding Thomas supports the Examiner’s notice that it was known in the art that multiple color laser sources can simultaneously provide multiple color beams and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous art at the time to replay all of the holograms simultaneously. See Ans. 11. We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 11 B. Claim 3 Issue Appellants argue that, in addition to the arguments presented with respect to claim 1, the Examiner erred in finding that Ueda teaches both that the sub-areas correspond to hypothetical divisions of the different recording materials 21, and that the sub-areas instead correspond to the separate recording materials. App. Br. 13. We address whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that the Examiner found that Ueda teaches the use of materials sensitive to specific colors which are capable of being divided into sub-areas. App. Br. 13. Appellants also contend that the Examiner found that the sub-areas correspond to the materials sensitive to each color. Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly and arbitrarily redefined elements of Ueda to correspond to the claimed subject matter. According to Appellants, the Examiner may not assert that the sub-areas correspond to hypothetical divisions of the different recording materials 21, and then assert that the sub-areas instead correspond to the separate recording materials. Id. The Examiner responds that Ueda teaches a method for fabricating a full-color multi-image type hologram, wherein one image changes over to another depending on viewing direction (different colors are displayed depending on viewing angle). Ans. 12. The Examiner finds that the method comprises dividing a plurality of hologram recording materials for different colors (e.g., three color-sensitive materials are disclosed for red, Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 12 green and blue) into a plurality of sub-areas in such a way as to correspond into one another. Id. (citing Figs. 5, 7). The Examiner finds that the sub- areas correspond to the different color-sensitive materials contained in the hologram sensitive layer (21, sensitive material). The Examiner submits that the elements of Ueda are not arbitrarily redefined because each color sensitive material layer corresponds to a different sub-area as well as a plurality of hologram recording materials. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Claim 3 recites, in relevant part: dividing a plurality of hologram recording materials for different colors into a plurality of sub-areas in such a way as to correspond to one another such that objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas at different color wavelengths for each hologram recording material…. App. Br. 17. Ueda teaches that: [M]ethod[s] in which hologram recording is made using a hologram recording film 61 on which materials 62, 63 and 64 sensitive to blue, green and red light are printed in a mosaic pattern. Alternatively, the hologram recording film may be exposed to blue, green and red light during hologram recording, while it is masked. Ueda, col. 13, ll. 6-11; see also Ueda, Fig. 20. Ueda thus teaches that recording materials sensitive to different wavelengths of light (“a plurality of hologram recording materials for different colors”) are arranged into a mosaic pattern or are masked (“a plurality of sub-areas in such a way as to correspond to one another such that objects to be displayed on different images are holographically recorded in the respective sub-areas”). Claim 3. Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 13 We therefore agree with the Examiner that Ueda teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 3 and affirm the Examiner’s rejection. C. Claim 10 Issue Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Ueda teaches the limitation of claim 10 reciting “a plurality of elemental holograms are imposed side by side into a first-stage hologram.” App. Br. 14. We address whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that, even assuming that simultaneously reconstructing the holograms was known in the art, simultaneous reconstruction of the hologram in Ueda would require the sensitive materials 21 being arranged on top of one another, instead of side by side as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 14. According to Appellants, arranging these materials side by side would require redesigning the apparatus, which would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Id. Appellants argue further that, as taught by Ueda, it was known in the art to stack sensitive materials on top of one another, instead of arranging them side by side. Id. (citing Ueda, Fig. 2). The Examiner responds that Ueda teaches a plurality of elemental holograms that are imposed side by side into a first-stage hologram. Ans. 13. The Examiner finds that a plurality of elemental holograms for each color (e.g., holograms recorded utilizing different wavelengths) is recorded side by side. Id. (citing Ueda, Fig. 10). The Examiner therefore concludes Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 14 that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a side by side arrangement of the prior art since the prior art itself discloses such an arrangement. Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner. Contrary to the Appellants’ contention, Ueda teaches that the plurality of materials sensitive to different wavelengths can be arranged in multiple fashions, including side-by-side. See Ueda Fig. 5; see also Fig 20. Figures 20a and 20b of Ueda explicitly depict the differentially-sensitive materials arranged in a side-by-side manner along the planar axis of the sheet, either as stripes or in a mosaic pattern. See Ueda, cols. 12-13, ll. 66-11. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding the limitation obvious over the cited prior art references. D. Claim 12 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Ueda teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 12 reciting: “providing a plurality of materials for recording elemental holograms for different colors … such that a plurality of elemental holograms are imposed side by side into a first- stage hologram for each color.” App. Br. 14. Analysis According to Appellants, Ueda teaches using a plurality of sensitive materials 21, each one sensitive to one color. App. Br. 14 (citing Ueda, col. 2, ll. 42-48). Appellants argue that Ueda teaches forming only a single “object,” or a representation of an object, on each sensitive material. Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 15 Appellants argue that Ueda therefore fails to teach or suggest imposing a plurality of elemental holograms side by side for each color. The Examiner responds that Ueda teaches a plurality of elemental holograms that are imposed side by side into a first-stage hologram. Ans. 13. The Examiner finds that a plurality of elemental holograms for each color (e.g., holograms recorded utilizing different wavelengths) is recorded side by side. Ans. 13-14 (citing Ueda, Fig. 10). The Examiner therefore concludes that it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a side by side arrangement of the prior art since the prior art itself discloses such an arrangement. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. We have related supra, with respect to claim 10, why we find that Ueda teaches a “plurality of materials for recording elemental holograms for different colors.” Ueda teaches that these recording materials may be arranged in a side-by-side manner such that a plurality of holograms (from the arrayed recording materials) is arranged in a side-by-side fashion. We therefore detect no error in the Examiner’s conclusion. E. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 Appellants assert that these claims, which are dependent from independent claims 1, 3, 10, and 12, stand or fall with those claims. Consequently, and for the reasons stated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal 2011-007640 Application 11/608,097 16 F. Claims 2, 4, 11, and 13 Appellants make no additional argument with respect to these claims except to assert that “Moss fails to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ueda.” App. Br. 15. Because, as related supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, and 15 over Ueda, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 11, and 13. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation