Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

12954894 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/954,894 11/28/2010
75719 7590 03/23/2016
BO-YANG LIN
628 PINE VALLEY
RICHARDSON, TX 75081
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bo-Yang Lin
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.
6442
EXAMINER
TANG,SONM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BO-YANG LIN
Appeal2014-002522
Application 12/954,894
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1---6 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "a method of using the disappearance of a
laser projection for the parking of a vehicle." Appeal Brief 4.
Appeal2014-002522
Application 12/954,894
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method of assisting vehicle parking inside a garage, comprising
of projecting a visible laser beam at an object so that the beam becomes
visible to a parking driver; aligning the laser beam in such a way that the
beam path is just blocked by the vehicle when it reaches a desired parking
location inside a garage causing the laser projection on the object to
disappear which tells the driver to stop.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1and5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krieger (US Patent Number 6,531,966 B2; issued March
11, 2003). Final Rejection 2-3.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krieger and Bowden (US Patent Number 6,002,346;
issued December 14, 1999). Final Rejection 3.
Claims 3, 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krieger and Fiene (US Patent Number 6,218,962 B 1;
issued April 17, 2001). Final Rejection 3--4.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 18, 2013), the Answer (mailed
October 10, 2013) and the Final Rejection (mailed March 27, 2013) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
2
Appeal2014-002522
Application 12/954,894
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellant argues that the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is improper
because modifying Krieger in the manner set forth in the rejection does not
render the invention obvious as claimed. Appeal Brief 7-9. Appellant
argues that "Claim 1 of my invention requires that the laser beam be aimed
at a 'front edge' of a vehicle when the vehicle is parked (Figures 2, 4--7 and
9 in my drawing filing on 11/28/2010)." Appeal Brief9. Appellant's
argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 because claim 1
does not require the laser beam to be directed at the front edge of the
vehicle. Krieger discloses a parking guide that utilizes a laser beam to align
vehicles in the parking area. Krieger, column 1, lines 13-16. Krieger
further discloses that the parking guide has an adjustable laser and a base for
mounting the guide above the parking area. Krieger, column 3, lines 56-63.
The Examiner finds:
As long as, the laser beam can be adjusted to correspond with
alignment of parking location, one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made, would find it obvious that
the laser parking guide unit (1) is configurable to mount at any
appropriate location inside the garage, adjusted the beam
projection that either spot to be seen or not to be seen when
interrupted by the driver.
Final Rejection 2-3. We agree with the Examiner's findings. 1 We sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as, dependent claim
5 not separately argued.
1 "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter
3
Appeal2014-002522
Application 12/954,894
Appellant argues that claim 2 is allowable because "Bowden (or
Krieger) does not teach the usage of a reflector outside of the enclosure of
his apparatus." Appeal Brief 18-19. We do not find Appellant's argument
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 2 recites, "wherein the visible laser spot on an object is formed by a
reflection of a primary laser beam from a reflector." Claim 2 does not
require the reflector to be positioned outside of an enclosure and it is evident
from Bowden that the reflector 28 forms or directs the laser beam. Bowden,
column 5, lines 50-54. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claim 2. Appellant argues that Fiene fails to address Krieger's deficiency.
Appeal Brief 19. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims
3, 4 and 6 because we did not find Krieger deficient.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1---6 are 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)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
to a person of ordinary skill in the art."' In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531F.2d1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976)).
4