Ex Parte ARAKAWA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2019

13903277 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/903,277 05/28/2013
25191 7590 01/23/2019
BURR & BROWN, PLLC
POBOX869
FAYETTEVILLE, NY 13066
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fumihiro ARAKAWA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
920_353 5590
EXAMINER
PASKO, NICHOLAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2019 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):
tpreston@burrandbrown.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FUMIHIRO ARAKAWA, TAKASHI KURODA,
and KOHEI KOMIZO
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-8 and 11.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, "Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.," which,
according to the Brief, is the real party in interest ( Appeal Brief filed
September 20, 2017 ("Br."), 2; Application Data Sheet filed May 28, 2013,
4).
2 Br. 7-17; Final Office Action entered March 28, 2017 ("Final Act."), 2-29;
Examiner's Answer entered November 21, 2017 ("Ans."), 2-12.
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a display device that
switchably displays a two-dimensional image and a naked-eye visible three-
dimensional image (Specification filed November 12, 2013 ("Spec.") ,r 2).
Figure 1 ( annotations added) is reproduced from the Drawings filed
November 12, 2013 as follows:
7. y
1· ,..,·
L-< ...... -.-:-.~<
d~s.pk~v strrfa~€· "3phco3i ir.~ert:Jc£G
--~ (·E~ (~6.a 5 ~=~ optit~~~t lnte:iace
, __ ._._._ .................. ---------- ------.- - -
.... ·'.. ,.
,,;; ..... , .. ·· .. :·
·v··'""',;····,--(
....... ··,; .......... , . ::: ~- ... --:-:,.
............................... -:-:-., ...
.. - ·,
n1;, t:2x
··,s:~n~;_!l~e>nd.:-..x mmnHUU ... .,,,.,,-.-, .. ,,-. ........ -..-.-.-.-., , __ ... ..-:1
.. /·.,._.<)
~;--~~:=~~:-=i;;:;~
:JJ. • • ••t:::::::•:,,.fff~'?0~-fl-~'t •••••••••••••••••••·,-,__.,..,..,..,..,..,.,,',Y,-",-,..,.-J,,•/
21
.26
1 :Tta-::i-e fO':"rnmq: surta~::E
~~,.,--'f . .,,,. -
2 -1 2 cf pb::eh
:,,
r·--·.· .. ·························· ~r///
f:: I r·:,- _ ·1. , P, . .:.'J ,. !
>· i b trnage d~3.~y unit
\
Figure 1 above provides a perspective view of a preferred display device 10
according to the invention, wherein the display device 10 includes, inter
2
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
alia: an image display unit 15, which includes an image forming device 20
and a polarization control device 30; and an optical sheet 40 (id. ,r,r 23, 26,
32). According to the Inventors, the image display unit 15 is configured to
emit light of one linear polarization component for forming a three-
dimensional image and light of the other linear polarization component for
forming a two-dimensional image, while the optical sheet 40 controls the
light's traveling direction depending on the polarization state (id. ,r 26). The
optical sheet 40 is described as including an optically anisotropic first
layer 51, which may be produced by stretching a resin film, and a second
layer 52 formed on the first layer 51 (id. ,r,r 50, 52; Fig. 5).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A display device comprising:
an optical sheet comprising a first layer including a
thermoplastic resin, the first layer being optically anisotropic,
and a second layer, which is laminated to the first layer and which
forms, between the second layer and the first layer, an optical
interface for changing a traveling direction of light of one
polarization component by refraction; and
an image display unit including a polarization control
device that controls a polarization state of light, disposed to face
the optical sheet and configured to be capable of emitting light
of one polarization component for forming a three-dimensional
image and light of a second polarization component for forming
a two-dimensional image,
wherein light, emitted by the image display unit and
having a polarization state controlled by the polarization control
device, enters the optical sheet, and the optical sheet controls a
traveling direction of the light depending on the polarization state
of the light, and is used in the display device for switchably
displaying a two-dimensional image and a naked-eye visible
three-dimensional image, and
3
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
wherein the optical interface includes unit optical
interfaces arranged in a first direction, and each of the unit optical
interfaces extends in a second direction not parallel to the first
direction, and has a convex lens-like contour convex toward one
of the first layer and the second layer.
(Br. 18 ( emphases added)).
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a), as follows:
A. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 11 as unpatentable over Takagi et al. 3
("Takagi") in view of Ikeda et al. 4 ("Ikeda");
B. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 11 as unpatentable over Takahashi5 in
view of Ikeda; and
C. Claims 2 and 6 as unpatentable over Takagi in view of Ikeda, as
further evidenced by two additional non-patent literature
documents; and
D. Claims 2 and 6 as unpatentable over Takahashi in view of
Ikeda, as further evidenced by the same two additional non-
patent literature documents.
(Ans. 2-12; Final Act. 2-29.)
III. DISCUSSION
Rejection A and C. The Appellant's arguments focus only on
claims 1 and 11 (Br. 7-16). Therefore, we confine our discussion to these
3 US 8,174,465 B2, issued May 8, 2012.
4 US 2010/0045902 Al, published February 25, 2010.
5 US 7,053,865 B2, issued May 30, 2006.
4
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
two claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). As provided by this
rule, all other claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Takagi describes a display device that
includes most of the limitations recited in claim 1, including an anisotropic
layer that corresponds to the specified "first layer including a thermoplastic
resin" (Final Act. 2-5). Although the Examiner acknowledges that "Takagi
fails to explicitly disclose that the first layer of the optical sheet includes a
thermoplastic resin," the Examiner finds that Takagi's anisotropic layer is a
drawn (i.e., stretched) film that may be produced from "ARTON
(JSR Corporation) and polycarbonate (Nitto Denko Corporation)" (id. at 5
(quoting from Takagi col. 2, 11. 4--8)). In addition, the Examiner finds that
Ikeda teaches an optical sheet including an optically anisotropic
thermoplastic resin layer that provides several benefits (Final Act. 5-6).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Takagi and Ikeda in the
manner claimed by the Inventors in order to obtain the benefits disclosed in
Ikeda (id. at 6-7). According to the Examiner, it would have been within the
general ordinary skill level of the person skilled in the art to select a known
material (i.e., a thermoplastic layer having anisotropic properties) based on
its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice (id. at 7).
The Appellant contends that Takagi's device is "functionally the
same" as the device described in a prior art reference (WO 03/015424 A2,
published February 20, 2003) identified in the Specification (Br. 7 (citing
Spec. ,r,r 4--6)). According to the Appellant, the prior art device's
birefringent lens has an optically anisotropic layer and an optically isotropic
5
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
layer that are disposed adjacent to each other and that "only light from the
other linear polarization component changes its traveling direction at the
interface between the optically anisotropic layer and the optically isotropic
layer" (Br. 7-8). The Appellant alleges that "the presence of the liquid
crystal material [in the prior art device] causes the birefringent lens to lack
stability, in particular, thermal stability" (id. at 8). The Appellant also
argues that "Takagi does not disclose or suggest the feature that a first layer
of the optical sheet includes a thermoplastic resin" and that "one skilled in
the art would not have had any logical reason to try to modify Takagi based
on Ikeda in the asserted manner" (id. at 9 (bolding removed)). According to
the Appellant, "in Ikeda, the polarizing element is located on the light-
incident side of the lower polarization sheet of the liquid crystal display
panel" (id. (citing Ikeda claim 17)). Further, the Appellant argues:
Takagi does not disclose or suggest the claimed feature that the
optical sheet is located on the light emitting side of the image
display unit, so that light that is emitted by the image display
unit, and which has a polarization state that is controlled by the
polarization control device, enters the optical sheet, and the
optical sheet controls a traveling direction of the light depending
on the polarization state of the light and is used in a display
device for switchably displaying a two-dimensional image and a
naked-eye visible three-dimensional image.
That is, in Takagi, the display device has a birefringent
lens which exerts a lens function only on light from the other
linear polarization component that forms a three-dimensional
image.
(Br. 11).
The Appellant's arguments fail to identify any reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
6
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
Takagi's Figure 1 (annotations added) is reproduced as follows:
, - ,, ,~- , - , ,-- , ---- b}lens substrate
_,v V )"
' ' ' -6c 6 optical plate
,/ ,' ---- 6a transparent substrate
transparent electrode substrate
4 polarization cell
transparent electrode substrate
twisted nematic LC
--------2 plane display device
2a1 2a2 2a3
L__ ___ - -~- ·y----------------.)
2a pixels
FIG. 1
Takagi's Figure 1 above depicts a stereoscopic image display apparatus
including, inter alia: an optical plate 6 having a lens substrate 6b, a double
refraction substance 6c, and a transparent substrate 6a; a polarization cell 4
that includes two transparent electrode substrates 4a and 4b and a twisted
nematic liquid crystal 4c; and a plane display device 2 comprised of pixels
2a (Takagi col. 7, 1. 7---col. 8, 1. 33).
With respect to the "first layer including a thermoplastic resin"
limitation recited in claim 1, the Appellant does not refute the Examiner's
finding that Takagi discloses thermoplastic resin materials for the
anisotropic layer (i.e., layer 6c) (Ans. 4 ( citing Takagi col. 2, 11. 4--8); Final
Act. 5). Therefore, we discern no reversible error in that finding.
7
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
Moreover, we also agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 6-7) that
Ikeda would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a
thermoplastic material such as a polycarbonate, consistent with Takagi's
disclosure, in order to provide, e.g., "polymer materials that easily exhibit
optical anisotropy (birefringence) ... in which the molecular chains show a
high degree of orientation in response to stretching" (Ikeda ,r,r 88-89) and,
as a result, provide a polarizing element that "can improve the efficiency of
using light, can be produced with relative ease, and is not problematic in
terms of strength" as well as "maintain the intensity and the propagation
direction of the light" (id. ,r 24). Although the Appellant argues that Ikeda's
polarizing element is located on the light-incident side of the lower
polarization sheet of the liquid crystal display panel (Br. 9 ( citing Ikeda
claim 17)), Ikeda's figures (e.g., Figs. 1--4) are not inconsistent with either
claim 1 or Takagi. In any event, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference" but, "[r]ather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
We find no persuasive merit in the Appellant's arguments based on
the notion that Takagi' s device is similar to the prior art device that is
discussed in the Specification at paragraphs 2--4. These arguments fail at the
outset because they do not reflect the actual language recited in claim 1. For
example, nothing in claim 1 precludes the presence of Takagi's nematic
liquid crystal layer 4c, which, according to the Specification's
unsubstantiated allegation, would cause stability issues. Thus, as the
Examiner explains, the "Appellant's arguments amount to a general
8
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically
pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them
from the references" (Ans. 3--4). In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 1998) (The "name of the game is the claim" and unclaimed
features cannot impart patentability to claims).
We are also unpersuaded by the Appellant's argument that "in Takagi,
the display device has a birefringent lens which exerts a lens function only
on light from the other linear polarization component that forms a three-
dimensional image" (Br. 11 ). Takagi teaches a "changeover between a two-
dimensional image and three-dimensional image" in which "light is not bent
at an interface between the variable polarization cell 4 and the optical
plate 6" in the two-dimensional image display mode and "the variable
polarization cell 4 conducts an adjustment so as to cause a polarization
direction ... to coincide with the major axis direction of the double
refraction substance 6c" in the three-dimensional image display mode
(Takagi col. 7, 1. 59-col. 8, 1. 33). The Appellant does not explain with any
reasonable degree of specificity what language in claim 1 serves to
patentably distinguish the claimed invention over Takagi.
For these reasons, we find no basis to overturn the Examiner's
rejection as maintained against claim 1.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites:
11. The display device according to claim 1, wherein a
refractive index nix of the first layer in the first direction, a
refractive index n1y of the first layer in the second direction, a
refractive index n2x of the second layer in the first direction, and
a refractive index n2y of the second layer in the second direction
satisfy the following two conditions:
9
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
ln1x - n2xl > ln1y- n2yl; and
0 < ln1y-n2yl :S 0.02.
(Br. 19).
The Appellant argues:
[I]n view of the differing structures in Takagi and Ikeda
and the functional differences of the respective devices, and
absent the disclosure in the present invention, one skilled in the
art would not have had any logical reason or reasonable
expectation of successfully modifying Takagi to exhibit the
otherwise undisclosed refractive index relationship.
(Br. 14).
We disagree. The Examiner's findings (Final act. 12-13) support an
obviousness conclusion. Given Takagi's teachings regarding the
relationships between the refractive indexes in layers 6a---6c, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have discovered-through nothing more than
routine experimentation-suitable (i.e., optimum or workable) refractive
indexes that would include situations that satisfy the conditions recited in
claim 11. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir.
2012) ("'[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior
art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation."' ( quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCP A 1955))).
Because the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence of
unexpected results for the specified refractive index relationships or
otherwise offer a sufficient rebuttal against the prima facie case, we also
sustain the rejection as maintained against claim 11.
Rejections Band D. The Appellant's principal contention is that
Takahashi does not disclose or suggest a display device in which a naked-
eye visible three-dimensional image is produced by one polarizing state of
10
Appeal2018-002772
Application 13/903,277
light and a two-dimensional image is produced by another polarizing state of
light (Br. 12-13). We agree.
The Examiner appears to rely on Takahashi's Figures 4 and 8 and
column 4, lines 58-65 to account for the limitations in dispute (Final
Act. 15-16). The Examiner, however, does not explain how these
disclosures constitute a description of the disputed limitations when
Takahashi's disclosure as a whole relates to a three-dimensional display
device (Takahashi Abst.).
Accordingly, we cannot sustain Rejections Band D.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A and Care sustained. Rejections Band Dare not
sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-8 and
11 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
11