Jesus Barcons-Palau et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 19, 2021

2020000986 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2021)

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. 13/885,523 05/15/2013 Jesus Barcons-Palau PU100220 9377 14868 7590 05/19/2021 Patent Docketing 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300 Attention: Docketing Wilmington, DE 19809 EXAMINER KHALID, OMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2021 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): docketing@interdigital.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JESUS BARCONS-PALAU, JENS CAHNBLEY, and GAD MOSHE BERGER Appeal 2020-000986 Application 13/885,523 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–10. Claims 5 and 11–16 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Interdigital Madison Patent Holdings. Br. 3. No Reply Brief was filed. Appeal 2020-000986 Application 13/885,523 2 IDENTIFICATION OF RELATED APPEALS Appellant states “[t]here are no related Appeals or Interferences.” Br. 4. This application was subject to a prior appeal that was not identified by Appellant. Specifically, on February 26, 2018, we decided Appeal 2017- 009087, which affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of the then pending claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii) states: A statement identifying by application, patent, appeal, interference, or trial number all other prior and pending appeals, interferences, trials before the Board, or judicial proceedings (collectively, “related cases”) which satisfy all of the following conditions: involve an application or patent owned by the appellant or assignee, are known to appellant, the appellant’s legal representative, or assignee, and may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal, except that such statement is not required if there are no such related cases. The assignee for the instant application is the same as the assignee for the application that was the subject of the Prior Appeal, because the both appeals involved the same application. The argued limitation, arguments and applied art in this appeal and the prior appeal are almost identical, therefore we find the appeals are related. We further find as both appeals have the same assignee, list the same inventors, and were filed by the same attorney, the Prior Appeal was known to Appellant, Appellant’s legal representative, and Assignee. We remind Appellants of this requirement, which was not met in this Appeal. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to upgrading a projector to display three- dimensional content. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2020-000986 Application 13/885,523 3 1. An apparatus for displaying three-dimensional content from a projector, comprising: a circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones, wherein the circular polarized filter is rotatable in proximity of a projector lens; a first light sensor disposed in front of the projector lens that provides a temporal control output signal representative of a frequency and a first time instant at which frames in the three- dimensional content are projected; a second light sensor disposed in front of the projector lens that provides a spatial control output signal representative of a second time instant at which the edge between the at least two polarized zones on the circular polarized filter crosses a particular point; and a processor for controlling a speed at which the circular polarized filter is rotated in response to both the temporal control output signal and the spatial control output signal, to place an appropriate one of the at least two polarized zones of the circular polarized filter in front of an applicable frame of a video sequence to obtain a polarization representative of the three- dimensional content. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES2 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date DeCusatis US 2007/0139769 A1 June 21, 2007 Lee WO 2008/056929 A1 May 15, 2008 REJECTIONS Claims 1–4 and 7–10 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by DeCusatis. Final Act. 4–8. 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2020-000986 Application 13/885,523 4 Claim 6 is rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeCusatis and Lee. Final Act. 8–9. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in Finding that DeCusatis discloses a filter “having at least two polarized zones”, as recited in each independent claim? ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Each of the independent claims recites “a circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones.” In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds DeCusatis discloses this limitation. Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner cites the polarizing filter 306 depicted in Figure 3A of DeCusatis, explaining that the filter is “controlled such that when a left image is projected, the wheel will be in a position to polarize the image in a pre-selected angle, and when a right eye image is projected the wheel is positioned to polarize the image at a different angle; i.e. the wheel comprises at least two zones.” Final Act. 4 (citing DeCusatis ¶¶ 65, 67, 79) (emphasis omitted). Alternatively, the Examiner finds this limitation disclosed in other embodiments described in DeCusatis, including the transparent filter wheel disclosed in paragraph 90, the multiple polarizing filters shown in Figure 14A and described in paragraph 115, as well as the two circular polarized filter wheels described in paragraph 117 and illustrated in Figure 14C. Final Act. 2–3. In the Answer, the Examiner additionally finds that DeCusatis’ disclosure of filter wheels having “an arbitrary number of polarizing segments” also discloses the recited “circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones.” Ans. 11 (citing DeCusatis ¶¶ 88–90). Appeal 2020-000986 Application 13/885,523 5 Appellant contends the Examiner has erred because “DeCusatis teaches that an angle of the polarizing filter wheel is adjusted based on whether the input signal is left eye data or right eye data.” Br. 9. Appellant further argues the filter wheel in DeCusatis includes only a single polarized zone. Br. 9 (citing DeCustatis ¶¶ 69–72, 76). According to Appellant, a “circular polarized filter having at least two polarized zones” as recited in the claims “cannot correspond to a polarizing filter wheel with one polarized zone whose angle is adjusted based on the input data.” Br. 9. We are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellant’s arguments. As noted above, the Examiner alternatively cites additional embodiments in DeCusatis as disclosing the argued limitation. For example, the Examiner cites DeCusatis’s disclosure of filter wheels having “an arbitrary number of polarizing segments.” DeCusatis ¶ 89. Appellant’s arguments do not address these alternative findings. Rather, Appellant’s argument focus on DeCusatis’ description of the video input signal (¶¶ 69–72), but do not address the paragraphs and drawings cited by the Examiner (¶¶ 65, 67, 79, 88–89, 115, 117; Figs. 3A, 14A, 14C). As such, Appellant has not persuasively challenged the specific findings made by the Examiner, and consequently have not demonstrated error. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that DeCusatis’ “arbitrary number of polarizing segments” discloses the recited “at least two polarized zones” (see, e.g., Ans. 15) because the use of the word “segment” indicates that the polarized areas on the filter wheel are divided and distinct, which is another way of stating that they are divided into “zones,” consistent with the Appeal 2020-000986 Application 13/885,523 6 Specification.3 See Spec. 5:20–23. DeCusatis’ description of the filter wheel confirms the Examiner’s explanation, as it states “[a] transparent wheel having selectively polarized sectors” can be used in the system. DeCusatis ¶ 90. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding DeCusatis’ discloses each and every limitation recited in the independent claims, and we sustain their rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).4 Remaining Claims Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any of dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 8–10. Accordingly, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. 3 A dictionary definition of “segment” is “each of the parts into which something is or may be divided.” Segment, New Oxford American Dictionary 3d. Ed. (2010). 4 Appellant also asserts that DeCustatis does not disclose two additional limitations. Br. 9. However, Appellant does not present any substantive argument with respect to these limitations. Mere assertions that prior art does not disclose a claim limitation, without more, are insufficient to demonstrate Examiner error. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim..”). Appeal 2020-000986 Application 13/885,523 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 7–10 102(b) DeCusatis 1–4, 7–10 6 103(a) DeCusatis, Lee 6 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–10 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED