Ex Parte Allio

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2017

13632590 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017)

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.
13/632,590 10/01/2012 Pierre Allio 1690-004U 1024
29973 7590 10/31/2017
CRGO LAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIERRE ALLIO
Appeal 2016-004500
Application 13/632,590
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 3—10, which constitute all claims pending in this application.1
App. Br. 4. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims App’x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alioscopy. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004500
Application 13/632,590
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to an
autostereoscopic display screen wherein subpixels of different colors are
optimized so as to improve the image quality for a given resolution. Spec.
11. In particular, the matrix of subpixels within each pixel is arranged such
that each subpixel present a main dimension forming a same non-zero angle
relative to the direction of the columns, and that the short bottom and top
end of subpixels within a same row present colors with an offset between
short ends of subpixels facing each other or facing black regions of the
screen with the shape of the sub-pixel. Id. 10-12, Figs. 4a, 4b.
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A display screen (E) comprising a matrix of pixels (P)
arranged in rows and columns perpendicular to said rows, each
pixel comprising three or more sub-pixels (SP) of different
colors (RGB), in alignment in the direction of said rows and
presenting a shape that is elongate, the screen being
characterized in that each said sub-pixel presents a main
dimension forming a same non-zero angle a relative to the
direction of said columns, and in that the short top and bottom
ends of each sub-pixel, with the exception of those in the first
and the last rows face:
- either, respectively, short bottom and top ends of sub­
pixels belonging to other rows and presenting other colors, with
an offset between short ends of sub-pixels facing each other,
- or else black regions of the screen with the shape of a
sub-pixel.
Representative Claim
Prior Art References
Van Der Horst US 2011/0248994 A1
Kashiwagi US 2012/0200562 A1
Oct. 13,2011
Aug. 9, 2012
2
Appeal 2016-004500
Application 13/632,590
Shinkai US 2012/0281273 A1 Nov. 8, 2012
Minato US 2013/0002974 A1 Jan. 3,2013
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3—5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kashiwagi and Minato. Final
Act. 3—5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Kashiwagi, Minato, and Van Der Horst. Final Act.
5-6.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kashiwagi, Minato, and Shinkai.
Final Act. 6—8.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the combination of Kashiwagi and Minato does
not teach or suggest an offset between short ends of subpixels facing each
other or facing black regions of the screen each black region having the
shape of a subpixel, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 7—9, Reply
Br. 5—9. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding
Minato’s disclosure of a black matrix B1 surrounding each subpixel
component in each direction teaches an offset between the short top and
bottom ends of subpixels facing each other or facing black regions with the
shape of the subpixel. Id. (citing Minato Figs. 9-11, 15, 16, 48—53, 87—
89, and 295). According to Appellant, there is simply no offset between the
subpixels in the screen disclosed by Minato, nor does Minato disclose black
regions having the shape of a subpixel, let alone an offset between the
subpixels facing the black regions. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-004500
Application 13/632,590
These arguments are persuasive. Minato discloses a display screen
with subpixels aligned vertically according to their respective colors (RGB)
such that the bottom end of a subpixel in any particular row align with the
top end of another subpixel of the same color abutted thereto vertically,
without any offset between the ends of pixels that face each other. Minato
Fig. 10. We thus agree with Appellant that Minato is silent with respect to
shifting or offsetting two or more vertically abutting subpixels. Likewise,
we agree with Appellant that Minato’s disclosure pertains to a continuous
black line as opposed to broken black regions, each having the shape of a
subpixel, and there is no finding to support a teaching or suggestion of
offsetting subpixels to vertically abutted black regions. Because Appellant
has shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need
not reach the merits of Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as the obviousness
rejections of claims 3—10, which also suffer the deficiencies noted above.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1 and 3—10.
REVERSED
4