ReviverMx, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 22, 2022

2021001280 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2022)

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. 15/863,361 01/05/2018 Dean Batten REVR-02001 5306 149591 7590 02/22/2022 Innovent Law, P.C. 33 Brookline Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 EXAMINER JIA, XIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2022 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com karima.gulick@gmail.com karima@kgulick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DEAN BATTEN and PRASHANT DUBAL ____________________ Appeal 2021-001280 Application 15/863,361 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ReviverMx, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001280 Application 15/863,361 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A vehicle information display system, comprising: a digital license plate attachable to a vehicle and having a display able to present electronically readable visual information; and wherein the electronically readable visual information is usable to facilitate provision of services; and wherein the digital license plate is programmed to: receive payment information from a remote server; detect that the digital license plate is located in a parking location; and in response to detecting that the digital license plate is in the parking location, display an indicator of payment for parking. REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haque (US 2015/0039365 A1, pub. Feb. 5, 2015), in view of Brubaker (US 2017/0200197 A1, pub. July 13, 2017), and further in view of Feroldi (US 2010/0141418 A1, pub. June 10, 2010). Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haque in view of Brubaker, in view of Feroldi, and further in view of Warther (US 2016/0183653 A1, pub. June 30, 2016). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haque in view of Brubaker, in view of Feroldi, and further in view of Seal (US 2013/0231828 A1, pub. Sept. 5, 2013). Appeal 2021-001280 Application 15/863,361 3 OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other contentions are not discussed in detail herein. Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia: detect that the digital license plate is located in a parking location; and in response to detecting that the digital license plate is in the parking location, display an indicator of payment for parking. The Examiner relies upon Feroldi for the disputed parking location limitations and determines that Feroldi teaches: see Fig. 1, paragraph 82, server 120 may receive payment of the monthly parking fee from user device 110, and may utilize such information to create configured sign information 830 that may be displayed by configurable sign 130. Configured sign information 830 may include information capable of being displayed by configurable sign 130. For example, in one implementation, configured sign information 830 may include textual information 450, graphical information 460[]. Final Act. 4 (emphases omitted). Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “[t]he display of information indicating payment has been made is performed in Feroldi only in response to detecting payment and independent of the vehicle location.” Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds: However, anywhere or anyplace a car can stop is a parking location. This can be anywhere on the ground where car is Appeal 2021-001280 Application 15/863,361 4 moving or not. The claim never discloses whether the car or vehicle is moving or stops during detection. A parking location can be on a street, on a yard, any geographic location, target location, on any piece of ground. Ans. 3, 4 (emphasis added). 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). As emphasized by our reviewing court in Smith: Even when giving claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board cannot construe the claims “so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation” “divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 751-53 (Fed. Cir. 2016). . . . . The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is “consistent with the specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Suitco Surface, 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Appeal 2021-001280 Application 15/863,361 5 Applying our reviewing court’s guidance here, we broadly but reasonably interpret the disputed claim language in a manner consistent with Appellant’s Specification. In re Smith, 871 F.3d at 1382-83. The Specification discloses: FIG. 7 illustrates one embodiment of a digital license plate system 700 including a digital license plate 702 supporting a camera 712. As seen in FIG. 7, a two-dimensional (QR) bar code 722 is displayed, along with a standard one-dimensional bar code 724, and a textual hyperlink 726 presented in a font easily read by electronic devices such as smartphones. Various types of information can be presented, including hyperlinks (722, 724, 726) or parking permits (QR code 730 and text 732. This information is typically displayed only when a car is parked, in response to an electronic request, or when certain conditions such as detected location in a parking facility are true. Spec. ¶ 65 (emphases added). We find the contested claim limitations “detect that the digital license plate is located in a parking location; and in response to detecting that the digital license plate is in the parking location, display an indicator of payment for parking” find clear support in at least paragraph 65 of the Specification: “when certain conditions such as detected location in a parking facility are true.” Given the aforementioned context and support in the Specification (¶ 65), we conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of “parking location” (claim 1), that is “consistent with the specification” Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054, means that the location is in a parking facility, rather than “anywhere or anyplace a car can stop is a parking location . . . anywhere on Appeal 2021-001280 Application 15/863,361 6 the ground where car is moving or not,” as found by the Examiner (Ans. 3, 4). Therefore, we conclude the Examiner’s broader construction is overly broad, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the Specification. Accordingly, on this record, we are compelled to conclude that Appellant has persuaded us of error regarding the obviousness rejections. Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to claim 1, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner error. Independent claim 11 includes limitations commensurate to the disputed limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 based on Haque, Brubaker, and Feroldi. For the reasons discussed regarding independent claims 1 and 11 we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of their respective dependent claims. CONCLUSION The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. Appeal 2021-001280 Application 15/863,361 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6-14, 16-19 103 Haque, Brubaker, Feroldi 1-4, 6-14, 16-19 5, 15 103 Haque, Brubaker, Feroldi, Warther 5, 15 20 103 Haque, Brubaker, Feroldi, Seal 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED