David A. Smith et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2019

14884975 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 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.
14/884,975 10/16/2015 David A. Smith 1202-086 2840
10904 7590 11/25/2019
Lockheed Martin and Withrow & Terranova
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
PASKO, NICHOLAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2019 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. SMITH, RANDEL A. CROWE, and
GREGORY A. HARRISON
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, 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 claims 1–8 and 10–24. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lockheed Martin
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a head-wearable ultra-wide field of view
(UWFOV) display device (see, e.g., claims 1 and 16) and a method for
presenting an image to an eye (see, e.g., claim 8).
The display device includes a frame that, in one embodiment,
resembles a pair of eyeglasses. Spec. ¶ 20; Fig. 1. Affixed to the frame is: a
light source (22 in Fig. 1), a diverging reflective surface (24 in Fig. 1), and
an ultra-wide field of view (UWFOV) reflective surface (20 in Fig. 1). Spec.
¶¶ 21–23.
Head-wearable display devices including a light source and a
UWFOV reflective surface fixed to a frame were known in the art. See, e.g.,
Spec. ¶ 18 (incorporating by reference U.S. Patent 8,625,200). Appellant
adds a diverging reflective surface (24 in Fig. 1) to the head-wearable
UWFOV display device to spread the light from the light source across the
UWFOV reflective surface. Spec. ¶ 4. The diverging reflective surface
receives light from the light source and reflects it toward the UWFOV
reflective surface and the UWFOV reflective surface then reflects the light
toward the eye of the user. Spec. ¶ 23. Appellant’s display device uses a
fixed light source configured to emit a stationary beam of light in
combination with the diverging and UWFOV reflective surfaces. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A head-wearable display device, comprising:
a frame;
a light source fixed with respect to the frame, the light
source configured to emit a stationary diverging light beam of
light;
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
3
an ultra-wide field of view (UWFOV) reflective surface
fixed with respect to the frame; and
a diverging reflective surface having a negative optical
power fixed with respect to the frame that is configured to
receive the stationary diverging light beam of light emitted
from the light source, to diverge the light to reduce a vergence
of the light, and to reflect the light toward the UWFOV
reflective surface and spread the light completely across the
UWFOV reflective surface, wherein the UWFOV reflective
surface is configured to collimate and reflect the light toward a
predetermined location.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lacroix US 5,253,116 Oct. 12, 1993
Waldern US 6,407,724 B2 June 18, 2002
Potin US 6,788,442 B1 Sept. 7, 2004
Hilton US 2009/0122385 A1 May 14, 2009
Harrison US 2012/0154920 A1 June 21, 2012
Fujikawa US 2013/0021224 A1 Jan. 24, 2013

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections.
A. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking
written descriptive support.
B. Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 11–14, 16, 18–20, and 24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Potin in view of Hilton.
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
4
C. Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 12–14, 16, 192 and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Hilton in view of Lacroix.
D. Claims 3, 11, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Hilton in view of Lacroix, and further in view of
Potin.
E. Claims 2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Potin in view of Hilton, or Hilton in view of
Lacroix, and further in view of Fujikawa.
F. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Potin in view of Hilton, or Hilton in view of Lacroix, and
further in view of Waldern.
G. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Potin in view of Hilton, or Hilton in view of Lacroix, and
further in view of Harrison.
H. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Potin in view of Hilton and Harrison, or Hilton in view of
Lacroix and Harrison, and further in view of Fujikawa.

OPINION
Written Descriptive Support for Claim 23
We turn first to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as lacking written descriptive support. Claim 23 depends from

2 Although claim 19 is not listed in the statement of the rejection, it is
discussed in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 25–26. Appellant
recognizes that claim 19 is rejected. Appeal Br. 13. Thus, the error is
harmless.
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
5
claim 1. Claim 1 requires a light source “configured to emit a stationary
diverging light beam of light.” Claim 23 further requires that “the stationary
diverging light beam emits a cone of light of 22 degrees or less.”
The issue is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that the original written description fails to reasonably
convey to the ordinary artisan that Appellant was in possession of a head-
wearable display with a light source configured to emit a stationary
diverging beam of light where the “stationary diverging light beam emits a
cone of light of 22 degrees or less.”
Appellant has not identified such an error.
The Examiner finds that the written description does not provide
support for the entire range of 22 degrees or less. Final Act. 3. According to
the Examiner, support is limited to the range of a cone of light of 10 degrees
or less as recited in paragraph 22 of the Specification and to the specific
example of 22.4 degrees in paragraph 34. Id.
Appellant points to the same paragraphs (paragraphs 22 and 34) and
contends that written descriptive support for the range of 22 degrees or less
is found in the use of the term “narrow-beam light source,” explicit
examples of narrow beam light sources, and figures that graphically
illustrate embodiments relating to spreading light from a narrow-beam light
source across two reflective surfaces over a short distance. Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant contends that, based on (1) the term “narrow-beam light source,”
(2) the examples and (3) the figures, “those skilled in the art certainly would
have appreciated that the inventor was in possession of the idea that narrow-
beam light sources that emit a cone of light of less than 22.4 degrees could
be utilized in Appellant’s recited embodiments.” Id.
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
6
The test for compliance with the written description requirement is
“whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to
those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (emphasis added).
Appellant’s argument fails because the written description does not
reasonably convey possession of displays with narrow-beam light sources
that emit light in cones of degree different than the degrees disclosed.
As found by the Examiner, paragraph 22 discloses that the light
source “may emit light in a relatively narrow cone, such as a +/- 10-degree
cone.” Spec. ¶ 22. The written description offers as examples specific types
of light sources known in the art, such as “a Liquid Crystal on Silicon
(LCoS) display, a digital light processing (DLP) display, or a laser display.”
Spec. ¶ 4. According to the written description, “narrow-beam displays, such
as an LCoS display, emit light in a relatively narrow +/- 10-degree cone.”
Spec. ¶ 3. Thus, the Specification equates “narrow-beam” light sources with
light sources that emit light in a cone of +/- 10 degrees.
Paragraph 34 does not provide a basis for reading paragraph 22 more
broadly to encompass the entire range of cones of 22 degrees or less. This
portion of the written description merely illustrates a method of calculating
the radius of curvature for the UWFOV reflective surface 20 given an
assumption “that a half angle of a cone of light emitted from the narrow-
beam light source 22 is 11.2 degrees, per specifications of the narrow-beam
light source 22.” Spec. ¶ 34. At best, this disclosure provides evidence that
narrow-beam light sources that emit a cone of 22.4 degree light, per
specifications, may be used to calculate the radius of curvature of a UWFOV
reflective surface.
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
7
The written description first conveys that “narrow-beam displays,
such as an LCoS display, emit light in a relatively narrow +/- 10-degree
cone.” Spec. ¶ 3. Then the written description discusses a mathematical
calculation based on a narrow-beam light source that, per specifications,
emits a narrow-beam cone of light of 22.4 degrees. Appellant has not
persuaded us that what is conveyed is broader in scope than the specifically
stated values for the cones. The written description fails to reasonably
convey possession of the entire range of 22 degrees or less.
Moreover, claim 23 does not recite what the Examiner and Appellant
assume it recites. Specifically, claim 23 does not recite that the light source
emits a cone of light of 22 degrees or less. Instead, claim 23 recites that the
stationary diverging light beam emits a cone of light. Because it is the light
source, according to the written description, that emits the cone of light, not
the beam of light, claim 23 lacks written descriptive support for this reason
as well.

Obviousness over Potin in view of Hilton
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–6, 8, 11–14, 16, 18–20, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Potin in view of Hilton and adds
further prior art references to reject claims 2, 7, 10, 15, 17, and 21–23.
All of the claims require “a diverging reflective surface having a
negative optical power.”
The Examiner finds that Potin’s mirrors 21, 23, and 41, shown in
Potin’s Figures 3 and 4, are diverging reflective surfaces, but acknowledges
that those mirrors do not have negative optical power. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner, however, concludes that it would have been obvious to the
ordinary artisan to modify Potin’s display device with Hilton’s diverging
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
8
reflector (12 in Fig. 1 or 54 in Fig. 11) having negative optical power “‘for
reconstruction and display of the image on the retina with a wide field of
view’ as it ‘produces a wide field of view from a relatively small angle input
scan.’” Final Act. 5 (citation omitted) (quoting Hilton ¶¶ 25 and 58).
Appellant points to a number of differences between the display
devices of Potin and Hilton, notes that the mirrors of Hilton have a different
function than the mirrors of Potin, and contends that the ordinary artisan
would not have considered combining the mirrors. Appeal Br. 9–11.
The issue is whether Appellant has identified a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to combine.
Appellant has identified such an error.
Because Hilton’s device differs in meaningful ways from Potin’s
device, and the mirrors have different functions, the Examiner was required
to set forth an evidence-based explanation detailing why the ordinary artisan
would have modified Potin’s mirrors to give them the hemispherical convex
shape of Hilton. The Examiner did not provide the necessary basis.
Although both Potin and Hilton are directed to head-wearable display
devices and both use a light source and a concave spherical mirror (UWFOV
mirror) to relay the image to a user’s eye, Potin’s light source is a fixed
display such as a cathode-ray tube screen or liquid crystal screen and
conveys that image by a relaying optic that superimposes the image on the
landscape at infinity. Potin col. 1, ll. 29–37. Potin uses the spherical
(UWFOV) mirror 1 (Figs. 3 and 4) to collimate the image generated by the
display screen and places the spherical mirror out of the user’s view. Potin
col. 1, ll. 51–54.
Potin inclines the concave spherical (UWFOV) mirror so that it is not
normal to the user’s eye and this results in optical aberrations and distortions
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
9
in the image that must be corrected. Potin col. 2, ll. 1–11; Figs. 3 and 4
(spherical mirror 1). Potin’s method of correcting the distortion involves
using diffractive field mirrors (mirrors 21, 41) to displace points of light
nonuniformly to form a hologram. Potin col. 2, l. 61–col. 3, l. 7; Fig. 3
(diffractive field mirror 21); Fig. 4 (diffractive mirror 41). Potin’s mirror 23
is an optional plane mirror that “enables the folding of the optical rays while
preserving the plane of incidence of the optical axis on the spherical mirror
1.” Potin col. 6, ll. 32–38.
Hilton tackles a different problem in a different device. Hilton’s
device is a direct retinal display (DRD). Hilton ¶ 1. Hilton’s DRD creates an
image by scanning a light spot, such as from a laser, in a raster pattern across
the retina of the user’s eye. Hitlon ¶ 2. Hilton uses a diverging reflector to
magnify a scanned beam angle from a scan source 14 in conjunction with a
converging reflector 16 (UWFOV mirror) to converge the beam scan back
towards the eye. Hilton ¶ 58. Hilton discloses that this arrangement
“produces a wide field of view from a relatively small angle input scan.” Id.
The Examiner appears to be proposing that Hilton suggests either
reshaping Potin’s diffractive mirrors so they diverge in the manner taught by
Hilton or entirely replacing Potin’s diffractive mirrors with Hilton’s
diverging mirrors. However, the exact proposed modification is unclear from
the Examiner’s broad brush statement that the ordinary artisan would have
modified Potin’s display device with Hilton’s reflecting surface having
negative optical power. Final Act. 5. Either way, the Examiner provides no
persuasive rationale supporting the modification beyond a quote of the
reason Hilton uses the diverging/UWFOV mirror combination in the DRD
device. The rejection fails because Potin’s diffractive mirrors function
differently than Hilton’s diverging mirror and the Examiner’s rationale does
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
10
not take that difference into account. The bare statements in Hilton do not
provide a reason to use the diverging mirror of the DRD display to modify
the diffractive mirrors of Potin.
The Examiner’s reliance on additional references to reject claims 2, 7,
10, 15, 17, and 21–23 fails to remedy the deficiency. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 8, 11–14, 16, 18–20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Potin in view of Hilton, nor the rejections adding
further prior art references to reject claims 2, 7, 10, 15, 17, and 21–23.

Obviousness over Hilton in view of Lacroix
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–6, 8, 12–14, 16, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Hilton in view of Lacroix and adds further
prior art references to reject claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 21–24.
The Examiner finds that Hilton teaches a head-wearable display
device including a light source on a frame and acknowledges that Hilton
fails to teach that the light source is fixed with respect to the frame and
configured to emit a stationary diverging beam of light. Final Act. 17. The
Examiner bases the obviousness conclusion on Lacroix’s teaching of a
projector fixed above a cabin of a flight simulator. Final Act. 18–19 (citing
Lacroix Figs. 1–5, col. 2, ll. 21–25, and col. 3, ll. 20–29).
Appellant contends that Lacroix teaches mounting three projectors
above a cabin and does not suggest fixing those projectors to a frame of a
head wearable display device. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further contends that
the ordinary artisan would not have fixed the protectors of Lacroix to the
frame of Hilton’s head-wearable display device. Id. We agree. Lacroix
teaches fixing a projection device 1, generally of the three-projector type,
above cabin 2. Lacroix col. 1, ll. 63–66. The user of the flight simulator sits
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
11
in the cabin. Id. The cabin is much larger than the frame of Hilton’s head-
wearable display device. The projector is also of much larger scale than the
scan source 14 of Hilton, which is small enough to fit on head-mounted
display device. Hilton ¶ 105. The Examiner has not provided the type of
evidence or technical explanation that supports a finding of a suggestion
within the prior art to use projectors meant to project an image into a
simulator cabin on the frame of a head-wearable display device such as that
of Hilton.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 12–14,
16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Hilton in view of
Lacroix. Because the Examiner’s reliance on further prior art references to
reject claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 21–24 does not cure the
deficiency, we do not sustain those further rejections.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed in part.
More specifically,
A. we sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
lacking written descriptive support;
B. we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 8, 11–14, 16,
18–20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Potin in
view of Hilton;
C. we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 12–14, 16,
19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Hilton in view
of Lacroix;
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
12
D. we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 11, 18, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hilton in view of Lacroix, and
further in view of Potin;
E. we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 10, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Potin in view of Hilton, or Hilton
in view of Lacroix, and further in view of Fujikawa;
F. we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Potin in view of Hilton, or Hilton
in view of Lacroix, and further in view of Waldern;
G. we do not sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Potin in view of Hilton, or Hilton
in view of Lacroix, and further in view of Harrison; and
H. we do not sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Potin in view of Hilton and Harrison, or
Hilton in view of Lacroix and Harrison, and further in view of
Fujikawa.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
23 112(a) Written Description 23
1, 3–6, 8, 11–
14, 16, 18–
20, 24
103 Potin, Hilton 1, 3–6, 8,
11–14, 16,
18–20, 24
2, 10, 17 103 Potin, Hilton,
Fujikawa
2, 10, 17
7, 15 103 Potin, Hilton,
Waldern
7, 15
21, 22 103 Potin, Hilton,
Harrison
21, 22
Appeal 2018-008935
Application 14/884,975
13
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
23 103 Potin, Hilton,
Harrison, Fujikawa
23
1, 4–6, 8, 12–
14, 16, 19, 20
103 Hilton, Lacroix 1, 4–6, 8,
12–14, 16,
19, 20
3, 11, 18, 24 103 Hilton, Lacroix,
Potin
3, 11, 18,
24
2, 10, 17 103 Hilton, Lacroix,
Fujikawa
2, 10, 17
7, 15 103 Hilton, Lacroix,
Waldern
7, 15
21, 22 103 Hilton, Lacroix,
Harrison
21, 22
23 103 Hilton, Lacroix,
Harrison, Fujikawa
23
Overall
Outcome
23 1–8, 10–
22, 24

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 IN PART