Ex Parte LinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 201612954894 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation