Ex Parte Shpunt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2018

14848490 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/848,490 09/09/2015
123590 7590 11/08/2018
D. KUGLER I.P. SERVICES LTD.
P.O. BOX 57651
TEL A VIV, 61576
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander Shpunt
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.
P24032USD1/l020-l059.3 2647
EXAMINER
LE,TUANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2018 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):
INFO@DKPAT.CO.IL
daniel@dkpat.co.il
alon@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER SHPUNT and BENNY PESACH
Appeal 2018-002 83 5
Application 14/848,490 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 10-12. We have jurisdiction over
the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2018-002835
Application 14/848,490
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to generating
a pattern of illumination, and positioning an array of lenses so as to project
different respective parts of the pattern onto a scene. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. Projection apparatus, comprising:
an illumination source, which is configured to generate a
pattern of illumination comprising light and dark spots; and
an array of lenses, positioned so that the lenses in the
array project different, respective parts of the pattern of the
light and dark spots onto a scene.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Golovkina et al. (US 2007/0183943 Al,
pub. Aug. 9, 2007) (hereinafter "Golovkina") in view of Inamoto (US
2005/0281029 Al, pub. Dec. 22, 2005). (Final Act. 2.)
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 6, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Golovkina, Inamoto, and Freedman et al. (US
2010/0118123 Al, pub. May 13, 2010) (hereinafter "Freedman"). (Final
Act. 4.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues2 :
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 17, 2017); the Reply
2
Appeal2018-002835
Application 14/848,490
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Golovkina and Inamoto teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitations,
an illumination source, which is configured to generate a
pattern of illumination comprising light and dark spots; and
an array of lenses, positioned so that the lenses in the
array project different, respective parts of the pattern of the
light and dark spots onto a scene,
and the commensurate limitation recited in independent claim 7. (App. Br.
6-8.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Golovkina and Inamoto teaches or suggests the claim 4 limitation, "wherein
the lenses are configured to project the respective parts of the pattern onto
different, respective areas of the scene," and the commensurate limitation of
claim 10. (App. Br. 8-9.)
ANALYSIS
First Issue
In finding the combination of Golovkina and Inamoto teaches or
suggests the claim 1 limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure of Golovkina of array modulator 18 which receives a beam of
light 16 and modulates the beam of light into an array of light and dark
areas. (Final Act. 2-3; Golovkina ,r 16, Fig. 1.) The Examiner further relies
on the disclosure of Inamoto of an array of lenses ( array 3 6 of lenses 3 7)
Brief (filed Jan. 21, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 30, 2017);
the Advisory Action (mailed May 12, 2017); and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Dec. 13, 2017) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2018-002835
Application 14/848,490
configured to project respective parts of a pattern onto different, respective
areas of a scene. (Final Act. 3; Ans. 7; Inamoto ,r 41, Figs. 1-2.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because "Golovkina expressly
teaches away from the use of lenses in pattern projection" (App. Br. 6
( emphasis omitted) ( citing Golovkina Abstract, ,r 7)) and "Inamoto makes
clear that the purpose of his lens array is to create uniform illumination" and
teaches away from the use of a lens array in pattern projection. (App. Br. 6
(emphasis omitted) (citing Inamoto Figs. 1-2, ,r,r 37-38).) Appellants
further contend a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no
motivation to combine the references because "[i]ncorporating Inamoto's
lens array into Golovkina's projection optics would have rendered
Golovkina's invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of projecting a
pattern." (App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).)
We do not agree with Appellants. While Golovkina teaches use of
mirrors so that "aberration and dispersion of light between the illuminated
elements of the array can be minimized" (Golovkina ,r 7), one skilled in the
art would understand that prevention of such optical effects is needed only in
the magnification and projection of small objects, such as "synthesized
oligomers" (Golovkina ,r 7). It is well established that teaching an
alternative method does not teach away from the use of a claimed method.
In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433,438 (CCPA 1965).
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Inamoto' s array of lenses
is a different "physical material" that "achiev[ es] the claim language." ( Ans.
7.) The Examiner finds, and we agree, that combining Inamoto' s array of
lenses with Golovkina's array modulator would provide "uniform intensity
to an illuminated region" ( Ans. 8 ( citing Inamoto ,r 3)) so that "[ w ]hen
4
Appeal2018-002835
Application 14/848,490
uniform intensity is associated with [a] black area, it yields a totally black
area and when uniform intensity is associated with [a] white area it yields a
totally white area." (Ans. 8-9.)
Appellants do not point to any evidence of record that the
combination relied on would be "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citingKSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" as the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claim 7 commensurate in scope, as well as
dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 not argued separately.
Second Issue
Appellants argue the Examiner errs, because in Inamoto "every one of
lenses 37 spreads the incident light over the entire area of panel 16, i.e., all
of the lenses direct light onto the same area" (App. Br. 8-9 ( emphasis
omitted) ( citing Inamoto Fig. 2)) and Inamoto explicitly states that the pieces
of light are "irradiated to overlap each other to a rear face of the liquid
crystal panel 16." (App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Inamoto ,r 41).)
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner's finding that the left-most
lens 37 of the array projects onto the left area of the liquid crystal panel and
the right-most lens 37 of the array projects on the right area of the liquid
5
Appeal2018-002835
Application 14/848,490
crystal panel (see Ans. 9 ( citing Inamoto Fig. 2)) appears to rely on an
incorrect interpretation of Figure 2, which, when properly viewed, shows a
uniform distribution of rays. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record
to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 10.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12, and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
4 and 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4 and 10 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
6