Ex Parte Matsuoka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2017

12891712 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 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.
12/891,712 09/27/2010 Shohei MATSUOKA PRSM/0026 1899
107821 7590 03/15/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Prysm
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
KAKALEC, KIMBERLY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2017 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):
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
sversteeg@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHOHEI MATSUOKA
Appeal 2016-000293
Application 12/891,712
Technology Center 2800
Before WESLEY B. DERRICK, JULIA HEANEY, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3—17, and 20—212 of
Application 12/891,712. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Prysm, Inc. Appeal Brief
dated Mar. 12, 2015 (“App. Br.”), 3.
2 Final Rejection dated Sept. 11, 2014 (“Final Act.”), 2—9. This Decision
also refers to the Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 6, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the
Reply Brief dated Oct. 2, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-000293
Application 12/891,712
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a two-dimensional scanning
projector which enlarges and projects an image generated by causing a light
beam emitted from a light source to scan in two dimensions. App. Br. 5.
Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) describes that such a projector can save
space by tilting the projection such that the optical axis is not orthogonal to
the screen. Spec. 1 3. A tilted projection, however, introduces distortion of
the image projected on the screen. Spec. 14. Appellant seeks to
compensate for the reduction in image quality associated with a tilted
projection. Spec. 17.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A two-dimensional scanning projector for causing a light
beam emitted from each of a plurality of light sources to scan in
a first direction and in a second direction, orthogonal to the first
direction, thereby projecting a two-dimensional image onto a
screen, the projector comprising:
a first deflector for deflecting the light beam in the first
direction;
a scanning optical system arranged between the first
deflector and the screen, the scanning optical system
comprising optical components which are collinear with each
other and define an optical axis of the scanning optical system,
each of the optical components having a power rotationally
symmetrical with respect to the optical axis;
wherein the optical axis intersects a plane in which the
screen lies, and a center of the screen is at a location shifted in
the second direction relative to the intersection of the optical
axis and the plane;
wherein the first deflector has a rotation axis located in a
plane including the optical axis and the second direction and
2
Appeal 2016-000293
Application 12/891,712
which is inclined by a first angle with respect to the second
direction;
wherein the first deflector is located whereby the light
beam, emitted from the light source and in the plane including
the optical axis and the second direction, forms a chief ray of
the projected image and is obliquely incident on the first
deflector at a second angle with respect to the optical axis;
a second deflector which is located between the light
source and the first deflector for deflecting the light beam in the
second direction; and
wherein the projector is configured such that light
beams emitted from each of the plurality of light sources
form beam spots on the screen.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3—4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Iizuka,3 Ishihara,4 and Amada.5 Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Iizuka, Ishihara, Amada, and
Takeuchi.6 Final Act. 8.
3. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Iizuka, Ishihara, Amada, and
Nakamura.7 Final Act. 9.
3 Iizuka, US 2002/0018273 Al, pub. Feb. 14, 2002 (“Iizuka”).
4 Ishihara, US 2005/0117188 Al, pub. June 2, 2005 (“Ishihara”).
5 Amada et al., US 2005/0179971 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2005 (“Amada”).
6 Takeuchi et al., US 2004/0155950 Al, pub. Aug. 12, 2004 (“Takeuchi”).
7 Nakamura et al., US 5,583,559 iss. Dec. 10, 1996 (“Nakamura”).
3
Appeal 2016-000293
Application 12/891,712
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues for patentability of the appealed claims on the basis
of limitations that are common to independent claims 1 and 10, and does not
separately argue any of the other appealed claims. App. Br. 5—13. We
therefore focus our discussion on claims 1 and 10 as argued by Appellant; all
dependent claims will stand or fall with the claim from which they depend.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner relies on Iizuka as disclosing a two-dimensional
scanning projector comprising the optical components recited in claim 1,
except that Iizuka does not teach that “a center of the screen is at a location
shifted in the second direction relative to the intersection of the optical axis
and the plane” or that “light beams emitted from each of the plurality of light
sources form beam spots on the screen.” Claims Appx; Final Act. 2-4
(providing citations to Iizuka). The Examiner relies on Ishihara as
disclosing a two-dimensional scanning projector having a center of the
screen (Ishihara Figs. 1 and 4: 68) at a location shifted in a
second/longitudinal direction {Id., y-direction) orthogonal to the first/lateral
direction {Id., x-direction) relative to the intersection of an optical axis
(Ishihara Fig. 5: Ax) and the plane of screen 6. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Iizuka’s projector by shifting the center of the screen as taught by
Ishihara, in order to reduce the appearance of ghost light on the screen. Id.,
citing Iizuka Figs. 4B-4C. The Examiner further determines that although
neither Iizuka nor Ishihara teach a plurality of light sources, it would have
8 Fabels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their
presentation in the original document.
4
Appeal 2016-000293
Application 12/891,712
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of
light sources, as taught by Amada, in order to provide a color image. Final
Act. 4—5 (providing citations to Amada).
Appellant argues that neither Iizuka nor Ishihara discloses
two-dimensional scanning using a plurality of light sources to project a
two-dimensional image onto a screen. App. Br. 7—9. Appellant further
argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Iizuka, Ishihara, and
Amada does not teach “optical components that are collinear with each other
and define an optical axis of the scanning optical system and also where the
optical axis is shifted from the center of the screen.” Id. 9—11.
To prevail in an appeal to this Board, Appellant must adequately
explain or identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365—
66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner fails to make a
prima facie case, it has long been the Board’s practice to require Appellants
to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection); In re Chapman,
595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he burden of showing that the
error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s
determination.” (Quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009))).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
they are not responsive to the rejection as set forth by the Examiner, and
argue the references individually although the rejections are based on
combination of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)
(arguing against individual references cannot overcome a rejection based on
a combination of the references). For example, although Appellant argues
that Iizuka and Ishihara do not disclose a plurality of light sources, the
Examiner does not rely on those references for teaching a plurality of light
5
Appeal 2016-000293
Application 12/891,712
sources, but rather relies on Amada. Ans. 3. Moreover, Appellant does not
dispute that Amada teaches a plurality of light sources, nor do they point us
to an error in the Examiner’s reasoning for combining Amada with Iizuka
and Ishihara. Generally App. Br.; Reply Br.
Appellant’s argument that none of the references alone combines
collinear optical elements that define an optical axis with an optical axis that
is shifted from the center of the screen is not responsive to the rejection
because it does not address the grounds for the rejection. App. Br. 9-11.
The Examiner relies on Iizuka as teaching collinear elements along the
optical axis, and Ishihara as teaching a screen that is shifted from the optical
axis. Ans. 3^4. Appellant does not direct us to a reversible error in the
Examiner’s reasoning for combining Iizuka and Ishihara. Reply Br. 2—5.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellant’s
arguments.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3—17, and 20-21.
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
6