RealD Spark, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2022

2021002041 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2022)

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. 14/663,251 03/19/2015 Graham J. Woodgate 371001 5267 145234 7590 03/07/2022 RealD Spark, LLC - Patents Stefan Bump 1930 Central Avenue Suite A-2 Boulder, CO 80301 EXAMINER DAVISON, ANGELA K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2871 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2022 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com patpros@raintechnology.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GRAHAM J. WOODGATE, JONATHAN HARROLD, and MICHAEL G. ROBINSON Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject, as unpatentable under U.S.C. § 103, claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14, 15, 17, and 19-22 over Ohyama (US 2010/0328438 A1, pub. Dec. 30, 2010) in view of Robinson (US 2012/0314145 A1, pub. Dec. 13, 2012), and claim 16, adding Lee (US 2014/0016354 A1, pub. Jan. 16, 2014). 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies RealD Spark, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed September 1, 2020, 3. Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 2 See Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated April 19, 2019, 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention recited in the claims on appeal relates to illumination of light modulation devices, particularly to light guides for providing large area illumination from localized light sources for use in two- and three- dimensional and autostereoscopic display devices. Specification (“Spec.”) filed Mar. 19, 2015, ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A directional display device comprising: a directional backlight comprising: a waveguide comprising: first and second guide surfaces for guiding input light along the waveguide, the first and second guide surfaces being opposed, and an array of light sources arranged to generate the input light at different input positions in a lateral direction across the waveguide, wherein the second guide surface is arranged to deflect light guided through the waveguide out of the waveguide through the first guide surface as output light, and the waveguide is arranged to direct the output light into optical windows in output directions that are distributed in a lateral direction in dependence on the input position of the input light; Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 3 a transmissive spatial light modulator comprising an array of pixels arranged to receive the output light from the waveguide and to modulate it to display an image; and in series with the spatial light modulator, a parallax element arranged to direct light from pixels of the spatial light modulator into viewing windows. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. 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) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the stated rejection for the findings, reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our own. We offer the following for emphasis. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14, 15, 17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ohyama in view of Robinson. Final Act. 4-8. Appellant argues the claims as a group, focusing on the limitations of claim 1. We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative; dependent claims 2, 5-7, 14, 15, 17, and 19-22 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). The Examiner also rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ohyama in view of Robinson, and further in view of Lee. Appellant does not separately argue this rejection nor otherwise address Lee. Therefore, claim 16 stands or falls with claim 1 from which it ultimately depends. Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 4 The Examiner finds that Ohyama discloses a backlight substantially as recited in claim 1, except for a waveguide providing directionality and having first and second opposing guide surfaces for guiding input light along the waveguide, and an array of light sources arranged to generate input light at different lateral positions across the waveguide, wherein the second guide surface is arranged to deflect light out of the waveguide through the first guide surface. Final Act. 4-5. However, the Examiner finds that Robinson discloses a waveguide providing directionality to a backlight and having first and second opposing guide surfaces 6, 8, and an array of light sources 15a- 15n arranged to generate input light at different lateral positions across the waveguide, wherein second guide surface 8 is arranged to deflect light out of the waveguide through first guide surface 6. Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified Ohyama’s backlight to provide directionality using a waveguide having first and second opposing guide surfaces, and an array of light sources arranged to generate input light at different lateral positions across the waveguide, wherein the second guide surface is arranged to deflect light out of the waveguide through the first guide surface, as taught by Robinson, in order to prevent any displayed images from having uneven luminance or dark spots. Id. at 5-6. Appellant argues that Ohyama and Robinson are not combinable because they are based on different technologies. Appeal Br. 8. In this regard, Appellant contends that Ohyama discloses a spatially-multiplexed display, whereas Robinson discloses a time-multiplexed display. Id. Appellant asserts that” spatially-multiplexed stereoscopic displays divide the pixel array into alternating columns of pixels-one for each eye-that are Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 5 simultaneously illuminated but masked from the viewer by a parallax component such that each eye perceives different columns at the same time.” Id. Appellant further asserts that, “[i]n contrast, time-multiplexed stereoscopic displays are configured to repeatedly alternate between displaying a left-eye image directed towards the left eye and then displaying a right-eye image directed towards the right eye during respective time periods.” Id. Appellant also asserts that “while Robinson discusses both technologies, Robinson only teaches that a time-multiplexed system can be used with directional backlighting.” Id., citing Robinson ¶ 44. And Appellant contends that there is no evidence that a skilled artisan would have combined elements of these technologies as the rejection proposes. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Initially, we note that claim 1 is not limited to either spatially-multiplexed or time- multiplexed displays. Instead, claim 1 merely recites a “directional display device comprising: a directional backlight.” In addition, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 5-6), Robinson discloses that the backlight can be used in a variety of display systems and optical systems. Robinson ¶¶ 12, 16. Indeed, Robinson discloses that aspects of the disclosed directional backlight “may be used with practically any apparatus related to optical and electrical devices, optical systems, presentation systems or any apparatus that may contain any type of optical system.” Id. ¶ 16. The Examiner’s proposed modification of Ohyama provides a specific light guiding plate and light source-Robinson’s stepped waveguide 1 and illuminator elements 15a- 15n-for Ohyama’s generically disclosed light guiding plate and light source. With regard to the Examiner’s reasoning or justification for Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 6 modifying Ohyama’s system in view of Robinson’s teaching, we note that Appellant fails to rebut or otherwise address the Examiner’s finding that Robinson’s waveguide would provide directional functionality to Ohyama’s system. Further, although Appellant asserts that modifying Ohyama in view of Robinson would not have been obvious because doing so would produce, rather than prevent, uneven luminance or dark spots, contrary to the Examiner’s reasoning, we note that Appellant fails to direct attention to any evidentiary support for this assertion. Appellant cites to Specification paragraph 203 which states that “temporally multiplexed displays can undesirably provide cross talk due to scatter from components arranged to achieve high spatial and angular uniformity from the waveguide components in the backlight.” Reply Br. 5. This disclosure pertains solely to time- multiplexed displays, and does not discuss the affect of a directional waveguide applied to Ohyama’s spatially-multiplexed system. Appellant next argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Ohyama’s system is improper because Ohyama already solves the problem of how to provide even luminance all along the light input surface. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 10. This argument is also not persuasive of reversible error. We note that the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Ohyama’s system is to provide directionality, to scatter the input light, and to prevent uneven luminance or dark spots. Thus, even if Ohyama’s system provides a solution to uneven luminance along the input surface, the modification provides the additional benefit of providing Ohyama’s backlight with directionality, i.e., generating specific positions for optical viewing windows. As such, the Examiner’s Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 7 proposed modification provides a specific benefit, i.e., directionality, not already provided by Ohyama’s system. Further, Ohyama provides only a very basic description of backlight 20 as including, among other elements, a light guiding plate and a light source such as a light emitting diode (“LED”). Ohyama ¶ 60. Appellant does not direct our attention to any disclosure in Ohyama addressing, much less solving, a problem of uneven luminance in backlight 20. Finally, in the Reply Brief, Appellant presents a number of new arguments not raised in the Appeal Brief (e.g., arguing that all or most of Robinson’s LEDs would have to be turned on in Ohyama’s system, resulting in superposition of light causing dark and uneven areas of illumination; modifying Robinson in view of Ohyama would undesirably halve the display resolution; reliance on Ex parte Baker, Appeal No. 2015-007748 (PTAB March 2, 2017) in arguing that the Office has not established that Ohyama’s backlight has a known problem of uneven luminance or dark spots). Reply Br. 6-8, 12-14. An argument raised for the first time in a Reply Brief can be considered waived if Appellant does not explain why it could not have been raised previously. See Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”). Appellant’s remaining arguments advanced in such a manner in the Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 8 Reply Brief have not afforded the Examiner an opportunity to respond to these new arguments. We, therefore, base our decision on those arguments raised in the opening brief. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14-17, and 19-22 over Ohyama in view of Robinson, alone or further in view of Lee. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above and in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ohyama in view of Robinson, and those references further in view of Lee, is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5-7, 14, 15, 17, 19-22 103 Ohyama, Robinson 1, 2, 5-7, 14, 15, 17, 19-22 16 103 Ohyama, Robinson, Lee 16 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 5-7, 14- 17, 19-22 Appeal 2021-002041 Application 14/663,251 9 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED