Ex Parte Müller

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

14379593 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/379,593 08/19/2014
23122 7590
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
06/28/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerhard Muller
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.
l 800P82372WOUS 7704
EXAMINER
HODGES, SUSAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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):
PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERHARD MULLER 1
Appeal2018-008754
Application 14/379,593
Technology Center 2400
Before JON M. JURGOVAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-13, all the pending
claims in the present application (see Claims Appendix). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1Appellant identifies Conti Temic microelectronic GmbH as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 2).
1
Appeal2018-008754
Application 14/379,593
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention generally relates to a method for aligning two
image recording elements of a stereo camera system. See Abstract. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for aligning at least two image recording
elements of two camera modules of a stereo camera system,
compnsmg:
arranging the image recording elements on mounting
plates of the camera modules with a surface of each image
recording element facing a surface of the respective mounting
plate, the surface of the respective mounting plate bounded on
one or more sides by at least one outer reference edge, wherein
the image recording elements are each aligned with the
respective at least one outer reference edge of the respective
mounting plates;
arranging the camera modules within the stereo camera
system, wherein the outer reference edges of the mounting
plates are positioned in direct contact with a common reference
edge of an auxiliary device or against multiple reference edges
of the auxiliary device that are aligned with one another, the
mounting plates formed separately from the auxiliary device;
and
removing the auxiliary device after completing the
arrangement of the camera modules within the stereo camera
system.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections: 2
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohsumi et al. (US 2008/0001727 Al,
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Adv. Act. 2.
2
Appeal2018-008754
Application 14/379,593
publ. Jan. 3, 2008), Nobis et al. (US 2011/0050855 Al, publ. March 3,
2011), and Sewell (US 2012/0081550 Al, publ. April 5, 2012). Final Act. 6.
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ohsumi, Nobis, Sewell, and Weber et al. (US
2011/0255000 Al, publ. Oct. 20, 2011). Id. at 12.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends, "Sewell does not disclose, teach, or suggest ...
removing a separate auxiliary device." App. Br. 7. Appellant argues, "the
Examiner bases the rejection on a statement in Sewell that the term
'coupled' may refer to connections which are permanent or removable in
nature." Id. "Notably," Appellant contends, "the Examiner does not argue
that Sewell discloses or teaches a separate auxiliary device which is removed
after alignment of image recording elements is complete." Id.
As noted by Appellant, the Examiner finds that Sewell discloses the
disputed limitation because Sewell teaches that "the term 'coupled' means
the joining of two components ( electrical, mechanical, or magnetic) directly
or indirectly to one another. Such joining may be permanent in nature or
alternatively may be removable or releasable in nature)." Final Act. 8-9
(citing Sewell ,-J 42); Ans. 6-7.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the cited
references teach or suggest "removing the auxiliary device after completing
the arrangement of the camera modules within the stereo camera system."
3
Appeal2018-008754
Application 14/379,593
See App. Br. 7. In particular, the Examiner's findings fail to explain how
Sewell's teaching that coupled connections are "removable" teaches or
suggests "removing the auxiliary device after completing the arrangement of
the camera modules within the stereo camera system." We note the
Examiner has not relied on any of the other cited references to teach this
element. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
and corresponding dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-7.
In contrast, independent claim 10 recites broader language than claim
1, namely, "the auxiliary device ... removable from the stereo camera
system." (Emphasis added.) Unlike claim l's narrower recitation of
"removing the auxiliary device after completing the arrangement of the
camera modules within the stereo camera system," claim 10' s auxiliary
device is merely removable. Appellant does not provide separate arguments
for the patentability of claim 10, relying instead on claim 10' s similarity
with claim 1. See id. at 8. As we explained above, the Examiner finds that
Sewell teaches, "the term 'coupled' means the joining of two components ..
. [which] may be removable." Final Act. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Sewell
,-J 42); see also id. at 11 (rejecting claim 10 "for the same reasons" as claim
1). Elsewhere, Sewell discloses a "circuit board 120 may be ... coupled to
the first frame member 131 and/ or second frame member 13 2" of" [ t ]he
camera system 110." Sewell ,-J 23 (emphasis added). Therefore, Sewell
teaches or suggests that the frame members coupled to the circuit board may
be removable.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claim 10.
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 11-13,
4
Appeal2018-008754
Application 14/379,593
so we also sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 11-13 for the reasons
stated with respect to claim 10. See App. Br. 8.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7.
We affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 10-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5