Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2021

2020001450 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 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.
15/813,242 11/15/2017 Venkatesh Krishnan 83916149;
67186-522 PUS1
3114
46442 7590 02/01/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
PEERCE, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2021 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte VENKATESH KRISHNAN and
SEGUNDO BALDOVINO
__________

Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–22. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Brief dated September 20, 2019 (“App. Br.”), at 1.
Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242

2

Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief.
1. A motor vehicle, comprising:
a conspicuity lamp; and
a controller configured to illuminate the conspicuity lamp in
proportion to a load of the motor vehicle.
App. Br. 9.
The Appellant discloses that “[c]onspicuity lamps are lamps that make a
vehicle conspicuous and visible with respect to its presence, position, direction of
travel, change in direction, and/or deceleration.” Spec. ¶ 44.
The conspicuity lamp may be a tail lamp or a center high-mount stop
lamp [CHMSL], as examples, which is viewable from an exterior of
the vehicle. By illuminating the conspicuity lamp in proportion to the
load of the vehicle, a user can conveniently discern the weight of the
load during the loading process (i.e., without the need to consult a
vehicle infotainment system or separate display panel).
Spec. ¶ 41.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–17, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Assmann2 in view of Panse;3
(2) claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Assmann
in view of Panse, further in view of Futehally;4

2 EP 1 512 575 A2, dated August 28, 2004 (“Assmann”). In this Decision on
Appeal, we refer to the English translation dated November 8, 2019, which is of
record in the instant Application.
3 US 8,981,918 B2, issued March 17, 2015 (“Panse”).
4 US 4,364,459, issued December 21, 1982 (“Futehally”).
Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242

3

(3) claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Assmann
in view of Panse, further in view of Von-Lintzgy;5 and
(4) claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Assmann in
view of Panse, further in view of Brown.6
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
a. Claim 1
The Examiner finds Assmann discloses a motor vehicle comprising a lamp
(i.e., loading indicator 1) and a controller configured to illuminate the lamp in
proportion to a load of the motor vehicle. Final Act. 2.7 The Examiner finds
Assmann teaches using the indicator in the payload area for user access while
loading the vehicle. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds Assmann, however, does
not disclose that loading indicator 1 is a conspicuity lamp. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner finds Panse discloses a conspicuity lamp (i.e., load indicator
lamp 18). Final Act. 2. The Appellant argues that “Panse’s element 18 is not a
lamp, but is instead a ‘dedicated warning device 18.’” App. Br. 3. Nonetheless,
there is no dispute on this record that Panse’s CHMSL, illustrated in Panse Figure
2, is a conspicuity lamp within the scope of the claims on appeal. See Spec. ¶ 41
(disclosing that the conspicuity lamp may be a tail lamp or a CHMSL lamp);
Panse, col. 5, l. 14 (identifying a CHMSL in Panse Figure 2).
Panse discloses that controller 88, in cooperation with an air suspension
system, can be configured to estimate the load on the front and rear axles of the
vehicle. Panse, col. 3, ll. 56–58. If controller 88 determines that the estimated

5 WO 89/04950, published June 1, 1989 (“Von-Lintzgy”).
6 US 8,412,485 B2, issued April 2, 2013 (“Brown”).
7 Final Office Action dated July 22, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242

4

load on one or both of the front and rear axles exceeds the gross axle weight rating
(GAWR), Panse discloses that the controller is configured to cause GAWR
warning device 18 to provide a warning that may be observed by a vehicle user and
is indicative that the GAWR is exceeded. Panse, col. 4, ll. 3–8. In one
embodiment of the invention, Panse discloses that “GAWR warning device 18 can
be coupled with a center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) of vehicle 10 and flash
a stop lamp of the CHMSL as the visual warning.” Panse, col. 5, ll. 13–16
(emphasis added).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a controller configured to illuminate the
conspicuity lamp [e.g., a CHMSL] in proportion to a load of the motor vehicle.”
App. Br. 9. We find that Panse’s controller 88 is configured to illuminate Panse’s
CHMSL in proportion to a load of a motor vehicle, as claimed, via GAWR
warning device 18.8 See Final Act. 8 (finding that Panse’s CHMSL is controlled
via GAWR warning device 18).
Alternatively, there appears to be no dispute on this record that Assmann’s
system comprises a controller configured to illuminate a load indicator in
proportion to a load of a motor vehicle. More specifically, Assmann discloses a
load indicator divided into four quadrants, “wherein the current wheel load for
each wheel is displayed in each quadrant and the quadrants are arranged
corresponding to the wheel position in the vehicle.” Assmann ¶ 6. Assmann
discloses that each quadrant of the load indicator is capable of independently
displaying a specific color based on the weight distribution of the load in the
vehicle. Assmann ¶ 7. For example, Assmann discloses that a green signal

8 Claim 1 does not exclude Panse’s GAWR warning device or any other electronic
element(s) disposed between the controller and the conspicuity lamp.
Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242

5

represents a permissible load, a yellow signal represents a maximum allowable
load, and a red signal represents an overload. Assmann ¶ 7. Assmann discloses
that “[t]he color representation proves to be particularly useful and helpful during
the loading operation.” Assmann ¶ 7.
Based on the foregoing, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that the load indicating system disclosed in Assmann is an
effective alternative to the load indicating system disclosed in Panse. Therefore,
we conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the design of Panse’s CHMSL to include four quadrants as taught by
Assmann and modify the configuration of Panse’s controller to illuminate those
four quadrants of the CHMSL in proportion to a load as taught by Assmann.
The obviousness rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
b. Claims 3 and 15
Claim 3 recites that “the surface area of the conspicuity lamp is divided into
sections, and wherein the controller is configured to illuminate a number of
sections of the conspicuity lamp in proportion to the load of the motor vehicle.”
App. Br. 9.
The Appellant argues:
If one replaced Panse’s CHMSL with Assmann’s display, the
modification would result in Assmann’s display being configured to
flash as instructed by Panse’s warning device 18. Accordingly, the
modification would not result in a conspicuity lamp which has a
surface area divided into sections and where a particular number of
sections are illuminated in proportion to the load, as claimed.
App. Br. 7.
As discussed above, the design of Panse’s CHMSL is modified to include
quadrants or sections and the configuration of Panse’s controller is modified to
Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242

6

illuminate those four sections of the CHMSL in proportion to a load as taught by
Assmann. Therefore, Panse’s modified CHMSL would not flash, as argued by the
Appellant. Rather, the sections of Panse’s modified CHMSL would be illuminated
in proportion to the load of the vehicle as recited in claim 3.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 15 is sustained.9
c. Claim 12
Claim 12 recites that “the motor vehicle is a pickup truck, and the load of the
motor vehicle is a load in a cargo box of the pickup truck.” App. Br. 10.
The Examiner finds Assmann discloses the limitation recited in claim 12.
Final Act. 4 (citing Assmann ¶ 10). The Appellant argues that “Assmann does not
disclose that the load of the motor vehicle is a load in a cargo box of a pickup
truck.” App. Br. 7. The Appellant, however, does not explain, in any detail, why
the Examiner’s finding is erroneous.
Moreover, Panse discloses that cargo is loaded into pick-up truck bed 130.
Panse, col. 5, ll. 9–10. Thus, the load in Panse’s vehicle “is a load in a cargo box
of the pickup truck” as recited in claim 12. See App. Br. 10.
The obviousness rejection of claim 12 is sustained.
d. Claim 21
Claim 21 recites that “the conspicuity lamp is a tail lamp and the sections are
arranged vertically relative to one another.” App. Br. 12.
The Examiner interprets the limitation “the sections are arranged vertically
relative to one another” as reciting that a plurality, but not all, of the sections are
arranged vertically. Final Act. 5; Ans. 6.10

9 The Appellant argues the patentability of claims 3 and 15 as a group. See App.
Br. 7.
10 Examiner’s Answer dated November 14, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242

7

The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 21. Rather, in response to the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Panse’s CHMSL
as a tail light,11 the Appellant argues that “Panse’s warning device 18 would not
cause a tail lamp to illuminate vertically-arranged sections in proportion to a load,
as required in claim 21.” App. Br. 8.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. In the
modification discussed above, Panse’s CHMSL comprises four quadrants or
sections as disclosed in Assmann. Thus, consistent with the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 21, sections of Panse’s modified CHMSL would be
arranged vertically relative to one another as claimed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 21 is sustained.
e. Claim 22
Claim 22 recites that “the conspicuity lamp is a center high-mount stop lamp
and the sections are arranged horizontally relative to one another.” App. Br. 12.
The Examiner interprets the limitation “the sections are arranged
horizontally relative to one another” as reciting that a plurality, but not all, of the
sections are arranged horizontally. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6–7.
The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 22. Rather, the Appellant argues that “Panse’s warning
device 18 would not cause a CHMSL to illuminate horizontally-arranged sections
in proportion to a load, as in claim 22.” App. Br. 8.

11 See Final Act. 5; Ans. 5–6; see also Ans. 17 (broadly interpreting the claimed
“tail lamp” as “‘a lamp on the rear of a vehicle’”).
Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242

8

The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Panse
discloses a CHMSL. In the modification discussed above, Panse’s CHMSL
comprises four quadrants or sections as disclosed in Assmann. Thus, consistent
with the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 22, sections of Panse’s modified
CHMSL would be arranged horizontally relative to one another as claimed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 22 is sustained.
f. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20
The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 in rejection
(1). See App. Br. 3 (stating that independent claims 1 and 13 are addressed
together on appeal). Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 is sustained.
2. Rejections (2)–(4)
The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of claims 6, 9, 10, 18, and 19 in rejections (2)–(4). Therefore,
the obviousness rejections of claims 6, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

Appeal 2020-001450
Application 15/813,242

9

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 8, 11–
17, 20–22
103 Assmann, Panse 1–5, 7, 8, 11–
17, 20–22

6, 18 103 Assmann, Panse,
Futehally
6, 18
9, 19 103 Assmann, Panse,
Von-Lintzgy
9, 19
10 103 Assmann, Panse,
Brown
10
Overall
Outcome
1–22

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED