Fetze Pijlman et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2019

15233084 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2019)

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.
15/233,084 08/10/2016 Fetze Pijlman 2010P00078US 7521
24737 7590 10/07/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
CHANG, AUDREY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2019 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@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 FETZE PIJLMAN, OSCAR HENDRIKUS WILLEMSEN,
LIEVEN RAF ROGER DESMET, MAARTEN SLUIJTER,
SIEBE TJERK DE ZWART and
MARCELLINUS PETRUS CAROLUS MICHAEL KRIJN
____________

Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LILEN REN, and JANE E. INGLESE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 2–21.2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42 and as identified in the Application Data Sheet filed August
10, 2016. Appellant, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N. V., is also the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief filed June 28, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 2.
2 Final Office Action entered January 25, 2018 (“Final Act.”) 1.
Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a device and method for providing
multiple views within a field of view of a display device. Spec. 1, ll. 11–14;
Appeal Br. 3–6. Independent claim 2 illustrates the subject matter on
appeal, and is reproduced below with contested language italicized:
2. A multi-view device comprising:
a display panel comprising a plurality of pixels;
a backlight comprising a plurality of light sources;
an array of lenses; and
a controller that controls the display panel and the
backlight;
wherein the display panel, the backlight, and the
array of lenses are arranged such that light emitted from
the plurality of light sources travels through the display
panel to the array of lenses to form a single viewing cone
comprising at least three different views;
wherein the controller provides video information
to the plurality of pixels to simultaneously provide the at
least three different views through the array of lenses
when the backlight emits the light,
wherein the backlight simultaneously enables all of
the light sources of the plurality of light sources that
provide the viewing cone,
wherein each light source of the plurality of light
sources illuminates a corresponding set of pixels of the
plurality of pixels, wherein each set of pixels comprises
fewer pixels than the plurality of pixels;
wherein a location of the plurality of light sources
relative to the display panel is adjustable, and
wherein the controller adjusts the location of the
plurality of light sources relative to the display panel to
direct the viewing cone in a first direction of the viewing
cone relative to the display panel.

Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered July 26, 2018 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 2, 6–11, 13–16, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ezra3 in view of Woodgate;4
II. Claims 3–5, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ezra in view of Woodgate and Woodgate II;5 and
III. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ezra in
view of Woodgate and Rogers.6
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 2–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the appellant provides for each issue the appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Explaining that even if the Examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections.”)).

3 Ezra, US 5,392,140, issued February 21, 1995.
4 Woodgate, US 5,991,073, issued November 23, 1999.
5 Woodgate, US 6,014,164, issued January 11, 2000.
6 Rogers, US 3,213,753, issued October 26, 1965.
Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

4
Rejection I: claims 2, 6–11, 13–16, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ezra in view of Woodgate
Claims 2, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–16, 18, and 21
Appellant argues claims 2, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–16, 18, and 21 as a group
on the basis of independent claims 2 and 18, which Appellant argues
together. Appeal Br. 9–14. We accordingly select claim 2 as representative,
and decide the appeal as to claims 2, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–16, 18, and 21 based on
claim 2 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Ezra discloses a three dimensional display
device having all the features of the multi-view device recited in claim 2,
except that Ezra discloses simultaneously providing two different views that
form a single viewing cone, rather than generating a single viewing cone
comprising at least three different views, as recited in claim 2. Final Act. 2–
3 (citing Ezra col. 4, ll. 29–44; Figs. 1 and 4). The Examiner finds,
however, that Woodgate discloses producing a single viewing cone
including at least three different views, which allows multiple views to be
directed to specific viewing locations. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Woodgate Fig.
14); Ans. 11–12. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to
apply Woodgate’s teachings to Ezra’s three dimensional display device to
provide more than three different views in a single viewing cone, so that
multiple observers, or observers that change location, can view a displayed
image. Final Act. 4; Ans. 12.
Appellant argues that Ezra does not disclose that the location of a
plurality of light sources that produce a viewing cone, relative to a display
panel, is adjustable. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant argues that Ezra also does
Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

5
not disclose adjusting a location of a plurality of light sources relative to a
display panel to direct a viewing cone produced by the plurality of light
sources in a first direction of the viewing cone relative to the display panel.
Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant argues that Ezra discloses a device that
includes eight light sources, and discloses illuminating each of the eight light
source sequentially, which produces two views per light source, and results
in a single viewing cone comprised of sixteen views. Reply Br. 3–5.
Appellant argues that the location of the eight (plurality) light sources that
produce the single viewing cone with sixteen views is, therefore, fixed
relative to the display panel. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 3–5. Appellant
argues that the direction of the single viewing cone produced by sequential
activation of each of the eight light sources in Ezra’s device also does not
change, but, instead, the direction of the views that together form the single
viewing cone changes. Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 7–8.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, however, for reasons that follow.
Ezra discloses a direct view display device for providing a three-
dimensional display. Col. 1, ll. 7–11; col. 2, l. 53; Fig. 1. Ezra discloses
that the device includes spatial light modulator 13 (display panel)
comprising a linear array of picture elements, a linear array of light sources
connected to control circuit 9, and lenticular screen 16 formed of a plurality
of contiguous lens elements. Col. 2, ll. 53–57; col. 3, ll. 4–7, 21–26, 31–34.
Fig. 1. Ezra discloses that control circuit 9 provides two views of an image,
taken from different directions during image capture, to the picture elements
of spatial light modulator 13, and control circuit 9 then causes each light
source in the linear array to be sequentially illuminated. Col. 2, ll. 57–59;
Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

6
col. 3, ll. 51–54.
Ezra exemplifies illuminating light source 5, which Ezra discloses
causes light to pass through the two views on spatial light modulator 13 to
screen 16. Col. 3, ll. 45–63; Figs. 1 and 2. Ezra discloses that screen 16
outputs ray bundles from the display device, resulting in the two views
represented on spatial light modulator 13 being visible to viewers from
different angles, which correspond to the angles of the object from which the
views were taken during image capture. Col. 3, ll. 57–66; col. 4, ll. 2–9;
Figs. 1 and 2. Ezra discloses that control circuit 9 deactivates light source 5
after a predetermined time, spatial light modulator 13 displays the next pair
of views, control circuit 9 activates the next light source, such as light source
4, and screen 16 outputs ray bundles, which are directed at different angles
from those output when light source 5 was activated, due to the difference in
positions of light sources 4 and 5 relative to spatial light modulator 13. Col.
4, ll. 13–28; Figs. 2 and 3. Ezra discloses that the process “continues until
each of the light sources of the linear array has been illuminated in turn.”
Col. 4, ll. 29–31.
Figure 4 of Ezra illustrates an embodiment in which the display
device includes two linear arrays 20, 21 of eight light sources, and shows
light source 5 illuminated in both arrays, which Ezra discloses “provide[s]
greater illumination by increasing the number of individual light sources
simultaneously illuminated.” Col. 4, ll. 44–56; Fig. 4.
Ezra thus discloses that during each period of time when a light source
from both linear arrays 20, 21 is activated, two views are generated, and
when the next light source in each linear array 20, 21 is activated, two new
views are generated whose locations differ from those produced by
Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

7
activation of the previous set of corresponding light sources. The Examiner
finds that the two views produced during each time period when
corresponding light sources are activated generate a single viewing cone
comprised of two views. Ans. 3–4. Although Appellant argues that
sequential activation of each of the eight light sources in Ezra’s linear array
generates a single viewing cone comprised of sixteen views, rather than
generating eight separate viewing cones comprised of two views each,
Appellant does not direct us to a definition of “viewing cone,” or any
description of “viewing cone” in Appellant’s Specification, which would
exclude a viewing cone comprised of two views produced as disclosed in
Ezra when a pair of corresponding light sources from linear arrays 20, 21 are
activated. Appeal Br. 7–14; Reply Br. 2–6. Accordingly, the area in which
the two views are visible reasonably corresponds to a “single viewing cone”
as recited in claim 2.
Furthermore, as discussed above, Ezra explains that the ray bundles
output by screen 16 when light source 4 is activated are directed at different
angles from those output when light source 5 is activated, producing two
views when light source 4 is activated whose locations differ from the two
views produced when light source 5 is activated. The direction of the
“viewing cone” comprised of two views produced by Ezra’s device thus
changes each time a new pair of corresponding light sources in linear arrays
20, 21 is activated. Activating a new pair of corresponding light sources in
linear arrays 20, 21 also changes—or adjusts—the location of the light
sources that produce the viewing cone relative to the location of spatial light
modulator 13, due to the difference in the positions of each pair of light
sources relative to spatial light modulator 13.
Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

8
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner states that in view of
Woodgate, Ezra’s design could be modified to produce all of the views at
one time interval.” Reply Br. 9. Appellant argues that the “combination of
Ezra and Woodgate as proposed by the Examiner will render the
combination unsuitable for its intended purpose” because “if all of the light
sources that produce the viewing cone [in Ezra] are enabled simultaneously,
as proposed by the Examiner, the device will not produce the 3-D image.”
Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 10.
As discussed above, however, Ezra discloses simultaneously
activating (or enabling) a light source from each of arrays 20, 21 to produce
two views that form a single viewing cone. As also discussed above, the
Examiner relies on Woodgate’s disclosure that including at least three
different views in a single viewing cone allows multiple views to be directed
to specific viewing locations, which the Examiner finds would have
suggested modifying Ezra’s device to provide at least three different views
in a single viewing cone, so that multiple observers, or observers that change
location, can view a displayed image. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Woodgate Fig.
14); Ans. 11–12. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, modifying Ezra’s
device as proposed by the Examiner would result in production of a three-
dimensional image because, as the Examiner explains, each of the at least
three views produced by the modified device would be directed to different
spatial locations, producing stereo-related views (including left eye
perspective image and right eye perspective image) that create a stereoscopic
or three-dimensional illusion. Ans. 12–13.
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6–8,
10, 11, 13–16, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

9
Ezra in view of Woodgate.
Claims 9 and 20
Appellant argues claims 9 and 20 together. Appeal Br. 14. We
accordingly select claim 9 as representative, and decide the appeal as to
claims 9 and 20 based on claim 9 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 9 depends from claim 2 and recites that the controller further
adjusts the location of the plurality of light sources relative to the display
panel to direct the viewing cone in a second direction of the viewing cone
relative to the display panel, wherein the second direction of the viewing
cone is different than the first direction of the viewing cone.
Appellant argues that “Ezra’s sequential illumination of each light
source of the plurality of light sources that produce the cone of view
produces a single cone of view that is projected in a particular direction,”
and, Appellant asserts, “[t]here is no way in Ezra to change this particular
direction because it is based on fixed location of light sources (‘linear array
of light sources 20, 21’) relative to display panel.” Appeal Br. 14.
As discussed above, however, the two views produced during each
time period when corresponding light sources are activated in Ezra’s device
generate an area of visibility—or a “single viewing cone”—comprised of the
two views. As also discussed above, the direction of this “viewing cone”
changes each time a new pair of corresponding light sources in linear arrays
20, 21 is activated in Ezra’s device, because the rays output by the device
are directed at different angles when a new pair of light sources is activated,
relative to the direction of the rays output when the previous pair of light
sources was activated.
Appellant’s arguments are, therefore, unpersuasive of the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

10
rejection of claim 9. We, accordingly, sustain the rejection of claims 9 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection II: claims 3–5, 17, and 19 over Ezra, Woodgate, and Woodgate II
and Rejection III: claim 12 over Ezra, Woodgate, and Rogers
To address these rejections, Appellant argues that the dependent
claims subject to these rejections are “patentable for at least the same
reasons discussed above with respect to each independent claim from which
they depend.” Appeal Br. 15.
Because we are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s position as
to these rejections is also unpersuasive of reversible error. We, accordingly,
sustain the rejections of claims 3–5, 12, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 6–11, 13–16,
18, 20, and 21
§ 103(a)
Ezra, Woodgate
2, 6–11, 13–
16, 18, 20, and
21

3–5, 17, and 19 § 103(a)
Ezra, Woodgate,
Woodgate II
3–5, 17, and
19

12 Ezra, Woodgate,
Rogers
12
Overall Outcome 2–21

Appeal 2019-000097
Application 15/233,084

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED