Ex Parte AllioDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 201713632590 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation