SMITH, Nathan James. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 6, 2019

14524446 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2019)

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.
14/524,446 10/27/2014 Nathan James SMITH HARAP0350USA 7533
72119 7590 12/06/2019
MARK D. SARALINO ( SHARP )
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2019 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NATHAN JAMES SMITH and PAUL ANTONY GASS
____________

Appeal 2019-001297
Application 14/524,446
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 3, 5–7, 9–15, 19, and 21–28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal is directed to “a
display system that has two displays that has multiple display modes

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2019-001297
Application 14/524,446

2

including a substantially low power consumption reflective display mode.”
Spec. page 1, ll. 10–11.

Illustrative Claim
5. A display system, comprising:
a first pixelated image display;
a second pixelated image display;
a reflective polariser disposed between the first image
display and the second image display, with the second image
display disposed on a viewing side of the display system;
an optical diffuser that maintains the polarisation state of
light disposed between the reflective polariser and the second
image display; and
a controller for addressing image data to the first image
display and the second image display, wherein the controller,
the first image display and the second image display are
configured to selectively operate in accordance with:
a first display function in which the first image display is
visible to a viewer through the second image display by the
controller controlling the second image display to be
substantially transparent to light emitted by the first image
display; and
a second display function in which the display system
appears as a patterned diffuse reflection to the viewer by the
controller controlling the first image display to emit no light
and switching pixels in the second image display to have a
pattern that conveys information; and wherein:
the first image display, second image display, reflective
polariser and optical diffuser are adhered together in optical
contact with each other;
the second image display has a liquid crystal layer, a first
substrate disposed on a non-viewing side relative to the liquid
crystal layer, and a second substrate disposed on the viewing
side relative to the liquid crystal layer;
the second image display is a Zenithal Bistable Liquid
Crystal Display (ZBD) that is switchable by the controller
between a twisted nematic (TN) configuration of liquid
Appeal 2019-001297
Application 14/524,446

3

crystal molecules and a hybrid aligned nematic (HAN)
configuration of liquid crystal molecules;
the first image display emits light linearly polarised in a
first direction, and a transmission axis of the reflective polariser
is arranged in the first direction;
for the first display function, the controller switches the
ZBD into the TN configuration and the alignment direction of
the liquid crystal molecules of the first substrate is in the first
direction, and the alignment direction of the liquid crystal
molecules of the second substrate is in a second direction
perpendicular to the first direction; and
a polariser that has a transmission axis in the second
direction is disposed on the viewing side of the second image
display.

Appeal Br. 1–2 (Claims App.)
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Erinjippurath US 2014/0049734 A1 Feb. 20, 2014
Akiyama US 2008/0273145 A1 Nov. 6, 2008
Lynam US 2007/0058257 A1 Mar. 15, 2007
Jones US 2004/0165135 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Mather US 7,813,042 B2 Oct. 12, 2010
Wang US 2006/0262258 A1 Nov. 23, 2006

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-001297
Application 14/524,446

4

Rejections
1. Claims 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19, 21, 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Erinjippurath, in view of Akiyama, Lynam, and Jones.
2. Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 22–24, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Erinjippurath,
Akiyama, Lynam, and Jones, and in further view of Mather.
3. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Erinjippurath, in view of Akiyama,
Lynam, and Jones, and further in view of Wang.
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections, and the Examiner’s responses to
Appellant’s arguments. Appellant proffers sufficient argument and evidence
to persuade us of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings
and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. In our analysis below, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis.

Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by failing to
provide sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness? See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Appeal 2019-001297
Application 14/524,446

5

Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).3
The Examiner finds
the display arrangement of Erinjippurath encompasses a
reflective polarizer (710; DBEF-D film) used to enhance light
efficiency of the optical stack, wherein alternatively, the
reflective polarizer is positioned between the cross-BEF
collimator and the image-generating panel (which would
thereby place the reflective polarizer between the contrast
enhancing panel and the image-generating panel). In this
arrangement both panels are capable of generating images and
both panels impart contrast into a final image for display to the
viewer (see paragraphs 27-28). Further Akiyama discloses a
system in which a reflective polarizer (101) is placed between
LC panels (10, 20), such that in mode (a; Fig. 3) the polarizer
reflects incoming light back through the panel (20) for imaging
(see paragraphs 56-59; Fig. 3).
Therefore it is the [E]xaminer’s position that the
disclosure of Erinjippurath, with the suggestion of the reflective
polarizer and the contrast enhancing panel, provides an
arrangement comparable with that of Akiyama. Adding this
feature to the device of Erinjippurath will thereby enhance the
function of the device of Erinjippurath by reducing power
consumption as well as providing an additional display mode
feature to the device.

Ans. 14–15.

Regarding the Examiner’s proffered rationale to modify Erinjippurath,
with the teachings of Akiyama, Appellant contends, and we agree:
there is no basis to move the position of the reflective polarizer
710 of Erinjippurath based on Akiyama to be positioned
between the claimed first and second image panels. As further

3 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2019-001297
Application 14/524,446

6

argued in the Appeal Brief, to do so would undermine the
operation of Erinjippurath for its intended purpose.
Independent claims 5 and 21 recite that the switchable ZBD
display is located on the viewing side of the display system. As
a switchable LCD display device, as understood to those of
ordinary skill in the art, the claimed viewing side ZBD display
is analogous to the achromatic LCD 714, which again in
Erinjippurath is the non-viewing side LCD in the relevant
embodiment of Erinjippurath, which is opposite to the claimed
configuration. In such embodiment of Erinjippurath, the
viewing side image panel is the color LCD.
If the reflective polarizer 710 in Erinjippurath were
moved to be between the two image displays in Erinjippurath as
asserted by the Examiner, with the color LCD on the viewing
side, Erinjippurath simply would not work for its intended
purpose, which is a core refutation of combining references.

Reply Br. 4.

Appellant further argues, and again we agree:
Referring to modified Erinjippurath, with addition of the
reflective polariser 710 between the two image panels,
Erinjippurath would be unsuitable for use as a reflective display
because virtually no ambient light (light from the viewing side)
will be reflected by the reflective polariser 710 to be viewed by
a viewer. Ambient light from the viewing side must pass
through the color LCD panel before reflecting back from the
reflective polariser 710.
. . . .
With reference to the diagram above [shown on page 5 of
the Reply Brief] for modified Erinjippurath, “white” light paths
are shown by solid lines, with filtered light paths being shown
by the dashed lines. The color filters of the color LCD panel
described by Erinjippurath will transmit approximately 1/3 of
light incident on the color filters. Light path 1 (LP1) shows the
possible paths for light incident on a color filter, for example
the red filter. First, the green and blue light rays will be
absorbed → reducing reflection by at least 2/3. Secondly, only
Appeal 2019-001297
Application 14/524,446

7

red rays that are reflected back through a red filter will exit the
display, as shown by LP1. By contrast, although LP2 and LP3
are reflected by the reflective polariser 710, this red light is
absorbed by the green filter (LP2) and blue filter (LP3). Similar
light paths occur for ambient light incident on the green filter
and blue filter. In summary, therefore, virtually no light will be
reflected back through the color LCD panel, and therefore a
second patterned diffuse display function is not possible in
Erinjippurath as claimed. Conversely, the ZBD panel would
not work in the configuration of Erinjippurath on the viewing
side because a ZBD panel as known to those of ordinary skill in
the art is black and white (no color) and does not have TFTs for
generation of color images.
Reply Br. 5–7.
The Supreme Court has held that the Examiner must provide an
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Kahn,
441 F.3d at 988). Here, for the same reasons argued by Appellant (Appeal
Br. 5–13; Reply Br. 2–8), as discussed above, we find the Examiner does not
provide such a rational reason. Thus, constrained by the present record, we
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 5 and
21 over the cited combination of Erinjippurath, Akiyama, Lynam, and Jones.
For the same reasons, we also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections
of each dependent claim on appeal.
Accordingly, as discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of all claims 3, 5–7, 9–15, 19, and 21–28 on appeal.
Appeal 2019-001297
Application 14/524,446

8

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5, 9, 11, 12,
15, 19, 21,
25, 27, 28
103 Erinjippurath,
Akiyama, Lynam,
Jones
5, 9, 11, 12,
15, 19, 21,
25, 27, 28
3, 6, 7, 10,
22–24, 26
103 Erinjippurath,
Akiyama, Lynam,
Jones, Mather
3, 6, 7, 10,
22–24, 26
13, 14 103 Erinjippurath,
Akiyama, Lynam,
Jones, Wang
13, 14
Overall
Outcome

3, 5–7, 9–
15, 19, 21–
28

REVERSED