Ex Parte Howard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2013

11218169 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte P. GUY HOWARD, ANURAG GUPTA, and SCOTT LERNER ________________ Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 15, 21, 22, 31-33, and 35. Claims 6-11, 16-20, 34, and 36 are objected to. Claims 12-14 and 23-30 are canceled. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed November 23, 2009; the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed April 27, 2010; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed May 25, 2010. Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 2 Claims 1-5, 21, 22, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Inamoto (US 7,244,032 B2; issued July 17, 2007). Ans. 4- 5.2 Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kim (US 7,327,409 B2; issued Feb. 5, 2008). Ans. 6. Claims 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Inamoto and Akiyama (US 7,213,927 B2; issued May 8, 2007). Ans. 6- 7. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a projection assembly configured to spatially shift at least a portion of an illumination path defined between an illumination system and a light modulator panel. Spec. ¶[0005]. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with a key disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A projection assembly, comprising: an illumination system, and at least one light modulator panel in optical communication with said illumination system, wherein said illumination system comprises; 2 The Answer states claims 2-5, 22, 31, and 33 are not to be reviewed on appeal. Ans. 3-4. However, the Final Rejection mailed July 28, 2009 rejects claims 1-5, 15, 21, 22, 31-33, and 35. The Notice of Appeal filed September 28, 2009 also states claims 1-11, 15-22, and 31-36 are being appealed. Accordingly, we review the rejections of claims 1-5, 15, 21, 22, 31-33, and 35. Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 3 a light source; and an illumination path comprising one or more optical elements of an illumination optics assembly for directing light from said light source to said light modulator panel and a vibrator configured to vibrate at least one of said optical elements to spatially shift at least a portion of said illumination path relative to said light source and said at least one light modulator panel. ANALYSIS THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 21, 22, 31, AND 33 OVER INAMOTO Claims 1-5 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 1, that Inamoto describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5. The Examiner relies on Inamoto’s vibrating element 65 (Fig. 5) and vibrating circuit 71 (Fig. 5) for describing the recited vibrator. Ans. 5 (citing col. 5, ll. 30-65). Appellants argue: Inamoto teaches vibration of a laser diode. (Inamoto, col. 5, lines 49-53). Inamoto does not teach or suggest a projection assembly including a vibrator configured for vibrating at least one optical element of an illumination optics assembly between a light source and a light modulator panel “to spatially shift at least a portion of said illumination path relative to said light source and said at least one light modulator panel,” as claimed. (Emphasis added). Inamoto only teaches vibrating the source of light itself. App. Br. 12. See also Reply Br. 8. In response, the Examiner explains Inamoto’s relay lens group 59 (Fig. 5), which is placed between laser illuminating device 50 and LCD Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 4 panel 11R (Fig. 2), is vibrated by a shaking device. Ans. 10 (citing col. 6, ll. 50-60). We agree with the Examiner. Inamoto (col. 5, ll. 30-65) describes, in Fig. 3, laser illuminating device 50 (see also Fig. 2) including laser diode 60, and shaking device 63 including vibrating element 65 and vibrating circuit 71. Inamoto (col. 6, ll. 54-59) states In FIG. 5, another preferred embodiment is illustrated, in which the relay lens group 59 is movable in an auxiliary or laser illuminating device 80, and the shaking device or vibration generator 63 vibrates the relay lens group 59. A relay lens holder 81 supports the relay lens group 59, and is provided with vibration by the shaking device 63. Appellants have not persuaded us that Inamoto does not describe a vibrator (Fig. 5, shaking device 63 including vibrating element 65 and vibrating circuit 71) configured to vibrate at least one of said optical elements (Fig. 5, relay lens group 59) to spatially shift at least a portion of said illumination path relative to said light source (Fig. 5, laser diode 60) and said at least one light modulator panel (Fig. 2, LCD panel 11R). We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-5, which are not argued separately with particularity. Claim 21, 22, and 33 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 21, that Inamoto describes all claim limitations.3 Ans. 5. The Examiner relies on 3 We interpret the recited elements in claim 21 as having invoked the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Appellants identify Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 5 Inamoto’s relay lens group 59 (Fig. 5a) and vibrating circuit 71 (Fig. 5a) for describing the recited “means for spatially shifting a path of said light by vibrating an optical element in said path between said means for generating light and said means for modulating light” (claim 21). Ans. 5. Appellants argue Inamoto teaches a vibrating element that vibrates a laser diode. App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue Inamoto “does not teach or suggest an optical element between a means for generating light and means for modulating light that is vibrated,” and teaches “vibrating the source of light itself.” App. Br. 10-11 (emphasis omitted). In response, the Examiner explains Inamoto’s relay lens group 59 (Fig. 5), which is placed between laser illuminating device 50 and LCD panel 11R (Fig. 2), is vibrated by a shaking device. Ans. 7-8 (citing col. 6, ll. 50-60). We agree with the Examiner. In the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue Inamoto does not state that “vibrating the relay lens group actually results in ‘spatially shifting a path of’ light from a means for generating light.” Reply Br. 7. Appellants have not persuaded us that Inamoto does not describe the recited means (Fig.5, shaking device 63 including vibrating element 65 and vibrating circuit 71) for spatially shifting a path of said light by vibrating an optical element (Fig. 5, relay lens group 59) in said path between said means (Fig. 5, laser diode 60) for generating light and said means (Fig. 2, LCD panel 11R) for modulating light. corresponding structures in the Specification for the recited means plus function limitations. App. Br. 8. Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 6 We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 21. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, as well as claims 22 and 33, which are not argued separately with particularity. Claim 31 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 31, that Inamoto describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4 (citing Fig. 6A, optical integrator 57). Appellants argue Inamoto does not teach that the optical integrator 57 is vibrated by a vibrator. App. Br. 13. In response, the Examiner explains Inamoto’s integrator 57 is held by a light path holder 97 connected to shaking device 63, which in turn vibrates the integrator 57. Ans. 11 (citing col. 6, ll. 60-67). Appellants have not persuaded us that Inamoto’s optical integrator 57 (Fig. 6A) does not describe the vibrator configured to vibrate the light integrator as recited in claim 31. We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 31. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIM 15 OVER KIM We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 15, that Kim teaches all claim limitations. Ans. 6. The Examiner relies on Kim’s scrolling unit 210 (Fig. 3) for describing the recited rotating an optical element. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that Kim, rather than teaching a rotating optical element that increases uniformity of light across a light modulator panel, Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 7 teaches “a rotating lens element that scrolls separate color bands of light over a light valve.” App. Br. 15. In response, the Examiner explains scrolling unit 210 (Fig. 3) scrolls the light and the light is in turn scrolled across the modulator 240 (Fig. 3). Ans. 12 (citing Kim, col. 4, ll. 53-56). We agree with the Examiner. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Kim’s scrolling of color bands over a light modulator decreases uniformity of light across the light modulator panel. Reply Br. 5-6. The appeal for claim 15 hinges on whether Kim describes rotating an optical element to increase uniformity of the light across the light modulator panel. As Appellants’ admit, increasing the uniformity of the light is a functional limitation of the recited “rotating an optical element.” Reply Br. 4-5. As long as Kim’s rotating optical element (scrolling unit 210, Fig. 3) is capable of performing this intended function, namely, increasing uniformity of the light across the light modulator, Kim meets the recited limitation. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Kim in rejecting claim 15, for Appellants have provided no persuasive argument or evidence demonstrating that Kim’s scrolling unit is incapable of performing the recited function. Regarding Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 15) that Kim teaches a rotating lens element that scrolls separate color bands of light over a light valve, and Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 5-6) that Kim’s scrolling of color bands over a light modulator decreases uniformity of light across the light modulator panel, we find these arguments unpersuasive. The fact that Kim scrolls separate color bands of light over a light valve does not preclude Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 8 a finding that Kim’s scrolling unit 210 (Fig. 3) is capable of increasing uniformity of the light across the light modulator. In addition, we note that a broad, but reasonable construction of the term “uniformity” is its plain meaning where “uniformity” is defined, in pertinent sense, as “1: the quality or state of being uniform.”4 The plain meaning of “uniform” in pertinent sense is “4: presenting an unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color.”5 We see no reason why Kim’s scrolling of light bands over a light modulator would not increase the quality of the presentation of an unvaried appearance of color of light across the light modulator panel. Notably, color bars are scrolled at a constant speed so that multiple color beams can reach each pixel of the light valve 240 (Fig. 3) to form the color image. See Kim, col. 6, ll. 56-62; see also col. 8, ll. 1-12 (noting that the scrolling unit’s unidirectional, constant-speed rotation guarantees color-scrolling continuity and consistency). We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 15. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 32 AND 35 OVER INAMOTO AND AKIYAMA We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claims 32 and 35, that Inamoto and Akiyama collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 6-7. 4 MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, p. 1292 (10th ed. 1997). 5 Id. Appeal 2010-011048 Application 11/218,169 9 Appellants do not separately argue claim 32 or claim 35 with particularity. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 9. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32 and 35. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 15, 21, 22, 31-33, and 35 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)(1). AFFIRMED llw