Disney Enterprises, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2020000781 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021)

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.
15/073,233 03/17/2016 Paul Raymond Bailey DISN/0272US (077013) 2394
77754 7590 06/02/2021
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046-2472
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL R. BAILEY, THOMAS T. TAIT, MARK A. REICHOW,
QUINN Y.J. SMITHWICK, and ALEXANDER W. HSING
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZADO, 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 1–3, 5, 6, 8–13, 15, 17–21, and 23–25.
We have jurisdiction 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Disney
Enterprises, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification generally relates to displaying stereoscopic images
for three dimensional (3D) media, and more specifically, to displaying
images by displaying left eye output (comprising one set of wavelengths)
and right eye output (comprising another set of wavelengths). Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display device, comprising:
a display screen comprising a plurality of pixels, each of the
pixels comprising at least both of a first emitter and a second
emitter, wherein the first and second emitters are self-emissive
and configured to generate visible light with different
wavelengths; and
a display controller configured to:
drive the pixels to output a left eye frame, wherein the left
eye frame is associated with a first set of wavelengths; and
drive the pixels to output a right eye frame, wherein the
right eye frame is associated with a second set of
wavelengths that are different in measure from the first set
of wavelengths, which causes perception of 3D effects
when the left and right eye frames are viewed by a user,
wherein the first and second emitters are used to output the
left and right eye frames.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hur US 2012/0236406 A1 Sept. 20, 2012
Basler US 2017/0118460 A1 Apr. 27, 2017

Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
3
REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–13, 15, 17–21, and 23–25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Basler and
Hur. Final Act. 3–22.
OPINION
Specification
The Specification relates to displaying stereoscopic images for 3D
media using wavelength multiplex visualization (“WMV”). Spec. ¶ 2. The
Specification explains that in the related art, in order to create 3D effects,
WMV involves projecting left and right stereoscopic images onto a screen,
in which one set of light wavelengths corresponds to the left eye, and
another set corresponds to the right eye. Id. A user viewing the 3D media
wears filtered glasses that permit one set of wavelengths to pass to the left
eye, and the other to pass to the right eye. Id. In this manner, the left eye
receives only the left stereoscopic images and the right eye receives only the
right stereoscopic images, which enables the viewer to perceive 3D effects.
Id. The Specification explains that, instead of projecting stereoscopic
images onto a screen, WMV may be realized with display devices that use
pixels to generate left eye display frames and right eye display frames. Id.
¶ 14. The display device may output the left and right eye frames either
simultaneously or during different time periods. Id.
In one embodiment, the display device is of a type in which each pixel
comprises emitters. Spec. ¶ 15. For example, a pixel can include six
emitters, wherein a first set comprises a red, green, and blue emitter for the
left eye frame and a second set comprises a red, green, and blue emitter for
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
4
the right eye frame. Id. In this embodiment, the left and right eye frames
may be displayed simultaneously. Id.
In another embodiment, each pixel includes only three emitters—a
red, green, and blue emitter—wherein each emitter alternates between
displaying a left eye frame and a right eye frame. Spec. ¶ 16.
Discussion
1. “emitter,” “self-emissive”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting the pending claims
because Basler, in view of Hur, teaches neither an “emitter” nor a “self-
emissive” emitter, as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Appeal
Br. 8–12. Appellant further contends the rejection of the remaining claims
are in error, due to their dependence on either claim 1, 11, or 20. Id. 12. For
reasons that follow, we are not persuaded of Examiner error with regard to
the “emitter” and “self-emissive” claim recitations.
There are at least two types of displays in the art, namely: 1) backlit
displays (such as liquid crystal displays (LCD)); and 2) self-emissive
displays. See, e.g., Ans. 4. In backlit displays, a light source (such as light
emitting diodes (LEDs)) provides backlighting; the pixels, however, are
formed in a layer (such as liquid crystal) separate from the backlit layer, and
essentially filter the backlight, allowing only certain light wavelengths to
pass through. See, e.g., Basler Fig. 2, ¶ 44; see also Appeal Br. 9–10
(explaining the pixels in Basler are filters, not emitters of light). In self-
emissive displays, the light source (such as organic light emitting diodes
(OLEDs), rather than being used for backlighting, instead more directly
forms pixels of the display. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 15.
The claims recite pixels comprising emitters, and that such emitters
are self-emissive. Appellant argues Basler is directed to backlit displays,
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
5
whose pixels comprise neither emitters, nor self-emissive emitters. Appeal
Br. 9–10 (quoting Basler ¶ 2). Even if the LEDs in Basler could be
considered emitters, Appellant submits that the LEDs in Basler do not form
the display pixels, but rather are for backlighting purposes. Id. The pixels in
Basler merely are filters, and therefore are neither emitters, nor self-
emissive, according to Appellant. Id.
We need not, and do not, decide whether Basler’s pixels—e.g., pixel
18 of display modulation layer 2B—are properly construed as emitters, or
whether they are self-emissive, because the Examiner does not rely solely on
Basler for the “emitter” and “self-emissive” claim recitations.2 Specifically,
the Examiner acknowledges Basler is directed to backlit displays, and does
not disclose self-emissive emitters. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds,
however, that in the same field of endeavor, Hur teaches interchangeability
of LCD backlit displays and self-emitting displays. Id. at 4–5. Accordingly,
we need only decide whether the combined art, rather than Basler alone,
teaches or suggests the “emitter” and “self-emissive” limitations.
Hur specifically states that its 3D techniques can be used either in a
backlit display or a self-emissive display:
The exemplary embodiments of the present invention have been
described, taking a non-emissive display device such as an LCD
as an example. However, the present invention may also be
applied directly, or similarly, to a self-emitting display device

2 The Examiner also finds that Basler’s pixels are emitters, but
acknowledges they are not self-emissive. Ans. 3–5. However, as discussed
below, the Examiner further finds that the combination of Basler with Hur
would result in a self-emissive embodiment, necessarily resulting in pixels
that would be considered emitters. Id. at 6.
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
6
such as an organic light-emitting diode (OLED), a field emitting
diode (FED), or the like.
Hur ¶ 165.
Appellant argues nonetheless that this disclosure does not support the
Examiner’s rejection. Appeal Br. 10–12. Appellant submits this disclosure
“is a bare recitation of a known device type with no hint or suggestion that
one would actually replace the color filters in Basler with OLED/FED
devices.” Id. at 11. We find Appellant’s assertion unpersuasive. The
Examiner does not simply replace the filters (i.e., display modulation
layer 21B) in Basler with OLEDs, as argued by Appellant. This would
result in placing a self-emissive layer on top of a backlit layer, which the
Examiner clearly does not intend.
Rather, the Examiner finds that in the relevant field, a skilled artisan
would have known how to implement Basler’s 3D display techniques using
a self-emissive OLED display. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 4–6. For the reasons
that follow, we agree.
As the Examiner explains, Basler and Hur both teach multiplexing
techniques to generate light of different wavelengths for each eye, and both
provide details of how to implement such techniques using backlit displays.
Ans. 6. But Hur provides the additional teaching that such techniques also
can be applied using self-emissive OLED displays. Id. (explaining Hur
teaches that the concept of using different wavelengths for each eye can be
applied in a number of different types of displays without limitation). More
specifically, in order to implement multiplexing, with regard to backlit
displays, Hur describes using color filters having different spectral
responses, similar to the color filters in Basler’s drive display modulation
layer 21. Ans. 7 (citing Hur ¶ 23; Basler Fig. 1B, ¶ 44). A skilled artisan
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
7
reading Hur would have understood that, like the color filters used together
with backlighting in backlit displays, OLED displays, too, can provide
different light wavelengths for each eye. Id; Hur ¶ 165. As the Examiner
explains,
one of ordinary skill in the art would [have been] able to design
multiplexing schemes in both LCD and OLED environments
because it [was] well known and most inventions [were] easily
adaptable between the two [environments]. Again, concepts of
ordinary skill (not extraordinary skill which some of Appellant’s
questions may possibly be directed to), enablement of what the
prior art is teaching, should be considered. Examiner submits
that one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the Hur’s teaching
in [0165], would [have been] able to reasonably, without undue
burden, adapt the non-emissive display that both Basler and Hur
are directed to, into a self-emissive display; the
teaching/suggestion/motivation is provided by Hur, as well as
ordinary skill with regards to known concepts in the art. Hur
provides a reasonable teaching that would [have] lead one of
ordinary skill to make the modification with an expectation of
success. These are not unreasonable adaptions and the suggestion
that Hur is unable to modify their own invention in light of their
specific statement is not persuasive.
Id.
We agree with these findings by the Examiner. As we discussed
above, both Basler and Hur teach the technique of using different light
wavelengths for each eye to modify backlit display devices for 3D imagery,
and a skilled artisan would have recognized, as taught by Hur, that such
technique could be used to modify OLED displays for 3D imagery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply the technique of using
different light wavelengths for each eye in the context of OLED devices.
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417) (2007) (“if a technique
[i.e., left and right eye multiplexing to create 3D displays] has been used to
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
8
improve one device [i.e., backlit displays], and a person of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices [i.e., self-
emissive displays] in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”).
Appellant additionally argues that the self-emissive disclosure in Hur
is directed only to certain embodiments—in particular embodiments
involving specific “3D-glasses embodiments.” Id. at 11–12. Even if it were
true that Hur’s self-emissive disclosure was made with reference to the 3D
glasses embodiment depicted in Figure 10 of Hur, it would be of no moment.
Appellant fails to explain the pertinence of this to the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Basler with Hur. Id. Moreover, we disagree that Hur’s self-
emissive disclosure pertains only to Figure 10. The self-emissive disclosure
relates to all of Hur. Specifically, Hur states that this disclosure applies to
“[t]he exemplary embodiments of the present invention” and “the present
invention [of Hur].” Hur ¶ 165.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner did not err in finding that the
combination of Basler and Hur teaches or suggests the “emitter” and “self-
emissive” claim recitations.
2. Claim 21
Claim 21, which depends from claim 20, includes additional
recitations that clarify the self-emissive emitters do not require backlight,
reciting that the display is not backlit and that the emitters comprise an
OLED and a quantum dot. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
shown the combination of Basler and Hur as teaching claim 21, for the same
reasons the combined art does not teach the “emitter” and “self-emissive”
claim limitations discussed above. Appeal Br. 12–13. For the same reasons
discussed above for the “emitter” and “self-emissive” limitations,
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
9
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error in rejecting
claim 21.
3. Claim 25
Claim 25 ultimately depends from claim 20. Claim 25 requires that
the emitters output left and right eye frames simultaneously. Appellant
submits that Basler teaches alternating (time-multiplexing) between left and
right eye frames, rather than outputting them simultaneously. Appeal Br. 15
(citing Basler (57), ¶¶ 4, 9). Hur, too, describes alternating between left and
right eye frames. See, e.g., Hur ¶ 18. However, it is undisputed that Hur
also teaches outputting frames simultaneously. Final Act. 21 (citing Hur
¶ 18); Appeal Br. 13–15. Despite Hur’s teaching, Appellant argues a skilled
artisan would not have modified Basler to display frames simultaneously
because such modification: 1) would render Basler unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose; and 2) would change the principle of operation of Basler.
Id. at 14. Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to
substantiate these arguments.
The Examiner sets forth a prima facie case for unpatentability in the
action from which this appeal is taken. Final Act. 21. The Examiner
identifies Hur’s teaching of outputting frames simultaneously (e.g., Hur
¶ 18), and provides a reasoned rationale for why a skilled artisan would have
applied this teaching to modify Basler to output left eye and right eye frames
simultaneously. Id. (explaining that Basler teaches: 1) two time periods and
the left and right eye data, 2) that which emitters are used, in which
sequencing, is a design choice, and 3) that paragraph 32 discloses various
permutations of Rl-G2, so a number of combinations and interpretations for
the emitters is possible and within Basler’s teachings). In response,
Appellant has failed to come forward with evidence and argument sufficient
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
10
to rebut the Examiner’s showing. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Specifically, the evidence fails to support Appellant’s claim that
Basler’s intended purpose and principle of operation is to display left and
right images in a time-multiplexed (e.g., alternating) fashion. Appeal Br. 14.
To support this assertion, Appellant simply quotes portions of Basler
describing certain embodiments, without providing any analysis. Reliance
on the cited passages is unpersuasive because Basler indicates time-
multiplexing of left and right images is simply an embodiment, rather than a
principle of operation of Basler. Basler ¶ 51.
Furthermore, Basler suggests embodiments other than time-
multiplexing are possible: “[i]n embodiments where two sets of light sources
provide for the left eye and right eye images respectively in a time-
multiplexed fashion . . . .” Id. This, alone, weighs against Appellant’s
unexplained assertion that the purpose of Basler is to provide time-
multiplexed left and right eye images. However, in addition to this,
Appellant has not shown that Basler would be inoperable if the left and right
images were to be displayed simultaneously. On the contrary, Basler
describes 3D glasses that employ filters over the right eye to block out any
image signals intended for the left eye, and vice versa, which would allow
for a 3D effect in cases where left and right eye images are displayed
simultaneously. Basler ¶ 45.
Moreover, as explained by the Examiner, the driving method of
Basler—i.e., simultaneous versus time-multiplexing of right and left eye
images—is independent of the structure of Basler. Ans. 8–9. Appellant has
not explained how modifying Basler to output frames simultaneously would
render Basler inoperable.
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
11
Finally, the failure to provide any reasoning or explanation weighs
against Appellant.
For the reasons discussed above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 25 as unpatentable over the combination of Basler and
Hur.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
More specifically, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–13,
15, 17–21, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Basler and Hur.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
13, 15, 17–
21, 23–25
103 Basler, Hur 1–3, 5, 6, 8–
13, 15, 17–
21, 23–25

Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
13, 15, 17–
21, 23–25

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).
Appeal 2020-000781
Application 15/073,233
12
AFFIRMED