Ex Parte De Zwart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

12865865 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/865,865 08/03/2010 Siebe Tjerk De Zwart
24737 7590 11/28/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2008P0009 l WOUS 7054
EXAMINER
BEASLEY, DEIRDRE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIEBE TJERK DE ZWART, MARTIN GERARD HENDRIK,
EDUARD NIESSEN, and MARTIN OUWERKERK
Appeal2016-003197
Application 12/865,865
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-12. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. (App. Br. 2).
2 Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 were canceled.
Appeal 2016-003197
Application 12/865,865
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to an autostereoscopic image output
device comprising an image panel and a plurality of lenticular elements
arranged over the image panel (Spec. 1:2--4).
Representative Claim
1. An autostereoscopic image output device comprising:
a panel of pixels having a rectangular shape and display
areas and arranged in an image defining array of rows and
columns, the rows including more pixels than the columns, in a
landscape mode a ratio of width in the row direction to height in
the column direction of the pixel display areas is in range of 1: 1.5
to 1:5; and
an array of lenticular elements positioned parallel to one
another over the panel of pixels and having optical focal axes
slanted at a first angle to the columns providing twice as many
pixels between the optical focal axes of adjacent lenticular
elements in the landscape mode as in the portrait mode,
wherein the panel and the array of lenticular elements
together are rotatable by 90 degrees to provide autostereoscopic
effects in landscape and portrait modes of operation, and
wherein the slant of the first angle in the landscape mode
satisfies: tangent of the first angle :::::; 2/3.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Woodgate et al. (US 2008/0231690 Al; published Sept.
25, 2008), Dolgoff (US 2006/0227427 Al; published Oct. 12, 2006), and
Hamagishi et al. (US 7,492,515 B2; issued Feb. 17, 2009) (Ans. 2-8).
2
Appeal 2016-003197
Application 12/865,865
Appellants ' Contentions
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, Appellants contend the
following:
1. Woodgate fails to teach the claimed ratio range of 1: 1.5 to 1 :5 of
width in the panel's row direction to height the column direction, and fails to
teach the claimed first angle of the slant of the optical focal axes to the
columns (App. Br. 9).
2. Woodgate's teaching of four columns in alignment with each optical
element in the portrait mode and two rows under each lens in the landscape
orientation does not provide enough information to ascertain how many
pixels are located between the optical focal axes of adjacent lenticular, and
thus, the reference does not teach providing twice as many pixels between
the optical focal axes of adjacent lenticular elements in the landscape mode
as in the portrait mode (App. Br. 10-11). Further, any discussion of pixel
numbers in Woodgate is iimited to the number of pixeis under different
optical elements, specifically the parallax array used in portrait mode and the
lenses used in landscape mode; Woodgate is silent about the number of
pixels between the optical focal axes of adjacent lenticular elements of the
same array of lenticular elements (Reply Br. 2-7).
3. Dolgoff teaches a range of tilt angles, but the reference does not teach
or suggest how many pixels can fit between the optical focal axes of the
lenticular lenses in the landscape and portrait modes of operation, and,
therefore, the reference does not teach the claimed panel and array of
lenticular elements that together are rotatable by 90 degrees to provide
autostereoscopic effects in landscape and portrait modes of operation (App.
Br. 9-10).
3
Appeal 2016-003197
Application 12/865,865
4. Hamagishi teaches a pixel display area with a ratio of 1 :3, but the
reference does not teach how many pixels are included within each lenticular
lens in the landscape and portrait modes of operation (App. Br. 10). 3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 2-7) that the Examiner erred. We
disagree with Appellants' above contentions 1--4. We adopt as our own (1)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 3-10) and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 9-12) in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Independent Claims 1 and 11
Regarding Appellants' contentions 1--4, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the rejection because Appellants are essentially attacking
each reference individually. The Examiner properly relies on In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Ans. 9-11), and states that nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures (id.). We agree with
3 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 4, 5, 8-10, and 12
(see App. Br. 12). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further.
4
Appeal 2016-003197
Application 12/865,865
the Examiner's finding that Woodgate teaches an autostereoscopic image
output device comprising a panel of pixels and an array of lenticular
elements tilted at an angle to the pixel columns, the panel and array together
are rotatable by 90 degrees to provide autostereoscopic effects in landscape
and portrait modes of operation (Ans. 2--4 and 9--12 (citing Woodgate i-fi-140,
130, and 131) ); Dolgoff teaches a lenticular array having a vertical tilt angle
of 30 to 60 degrees, which includes the claimed angle of 33-34 degrees (id.
(citing Dolgoffi-f 10)); and Hamagishi teaches a display having a
width/height ratio of 1 :3 (id. (citing Hamagishi col. 22:5-18)).
Appellants' Specification discloses "the preferred slant of [an angle
having the tangent of] 2/3, when combined with a pixel ratio 1/3, gives rise
to twice as many pixels between lenses in the landscape mode compared to
the portrait mode" (Spec. 9: 10-12). Thus, we agree with the Examiner's
conclusion that the display of the prior art combination, having a pixel
width/height ratio of 1 :3 (i.e., the same as Appeiiants' preferred
embodiment) and a lenticular array tilt angle of approximately 33-34
degrees (i.e., having the claimed angle tangent of:::::; 2/3), results in the same
claimed structure of a slanted array of lenticular elements that provide twice
as many pixels between the optical focal axes of adjacent lenticular elements
in the landscape mode as in the portrait mode (Ans. 2--4 and 12).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Woodgate,
Dolgoff, and Hamagishi.
5
Appeal 2016-003197
Application 12/865,865
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6