Ex Parte Addy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2017

13864560 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2017)

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.
13/864,560 04/17/2013 Kenneth L. Addy H0038835-HON10513P01090US 3135
93730 7590 07/19/2017
HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
HORNER, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2017 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):
ksanderson@woodphillips.com
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docketing @ woodphillips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH L. ADDY, ERIC OH, and TOMAS BRODSKY
Appeal 2016-007924
Application 13/864,5601
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS-MERCADER, and CARL L.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on Rehearing in Appeal No. 2016-007924. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Requests for Rehearing are limited
to matters misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering the
original decision. 37 C.F.R. §41.52.
We have reconsidered our Decision regarding the claims in light of
Appellants’ comments in the Request for Rehearing (“Request”). We grant
the Request to the extent that we consider the Appellants’ arguments infra,
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-007924
Application 13/864,560
but DENY the request to modify our Decision. We incorporate our earlier
Decision herein by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1).
ISSUES ON REHEARING
Appellants present arguments they assert should be considered in the
Request. Thus, the issue is whether the Board either overlooked or
misapprehended these arguments.
ANALYSIS
In our Decision, we affirmed the rejections of claims 1—21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). (Decision 9).
Appellants argue the interpretation of the term “adjust” in claim 1 is
overbroad and unreasonable and, one skilled in the art, would not interpret
the claim to apply to the teaching of Bias and Zontrop. Req. 3—5.
According to Appellants, Bias teaches matching an image to a wall pattern
by purchasing and then downloading a matching picture, but nothing is
adjusted. Id. at 3. In particular, Appellants argue “[Replacing one image
with another is not adjusting one or more aspects of an image” and “[tjhere
is no adjustment.” Id. at 4.
Further, Appellants argue Zontrop “effectively adds nothing to Bias.”
Id. According to Appellants,
Zontrop discloses an electronic device which can display an
image that matches a surrounding pattern. The image is created
in a camouflage creator which is software installed on a
computer device or in the camera itself. However, as with Bias,
the image is transferred from a separate computer or camera to
the electronic device. No adjustment is made in the electronic
device.
Id.
2
Appeal 2016-007924
Application 13/864,560
Appellants argue dependent claim 6 recites “the user interface is
operable to adjust size and orientation of the displayed image to match the
wall” and is more specific with respect to aspects of the image that are
adjusted. Id. at 5—6. According to Appellants, the Examiner’s finding that
there is no limitation which requires manual adjustment is agreed to by the
Board. Id. at 5. However, Appellants argue claim 6 is an apparatus claim,
not a method claim, and “[wjhile the claim does not recite manual
adjustment per se, the claim recites that the user interface is operable [to]
make the adjustments.” Id. Appellants then argue neither Bias nor Zontrop
“teaches that a touch screen interface can be used to adjust size and
orientation of a displayed image to match the wall.” Id. at 6. According to
Appellants:
With both Bias and Zontrop, it is essentially a leap of
faith that the image that is downloaded will match the
surrounding wall. If the size and orientation of the image do not
match the wall, then nothing can be done except perhaps taking
a new image and downloading a new image. This is not what is
being claimed. Claim 6 specifies a user interface, which such
user interface can be used to adjust size and orientation of the
displayed image to match the wall.
Id.
In our Decision, we stated we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Briefs and agree, instead with the Examiner’s
findings and claim interpretation. Dec. 5. In particular, we agreed with the
Examiner that Appellants present no persuasive argument that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the term “adjust” in the context of the claim 1
limitations is overbroad or unreasonable as would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. Id. Claim terms in a patent application are given
the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as
3
Appeal 2016-007924
Application 13/864,560
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The term “adjust” is not defined in the Specification and one of
ordinary skill in the art would not consider the term to have the narrow
meaning asserted by Appellants. Decision 4. For example, the Specification
uses the term in an exemplary fashion (e.g., “[t]he user can adjust the image
such as by . . .”) and further states “no limitations to the specific forms of the
embodiments disclosed herein should be read into the claims unless
expressly recited in the claims.” Spec. 29, 30, 35, 36. Therefore, we
find no error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the term to apply to the
teachings of the combination of Bias and Zontrop. Decision 3^4.
We note Appellants argue Bias and Zontrop individually whereas the
rejection is based on the combination of the teaching of these references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[Ojne cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” (citations omitted)); In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s finding Bias
teaches a wall pattern may be of different types and one of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that the image can be adapted to show a specific
texture or color, thereby adjusting one or more aspects of the image so that
the display image blends in with the wall proximate the user interface. Ans.
2—3 (citing Bias 117). We also agree with Examiner that Bias teaches the
image can be adjusted such it forms a pattern which aligns with a housing
skin, which represents another aspect of the image that can be adjusted. Id.
4
Appeal 2016-007924
Application 13/864,560
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding Zontrop teaches displaying
an image that is adjusted and, regarding the combination of Bias and
Zontrop:
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
ability of the control device of Bias et al. to adjust an image
would be improved by using an image of the wall to which a
digital camouflage pattern can be determined based on the image
and the size of the display. The Final Rejection does not rely on
Zontrop et al. merely for modifying the control device of Bias et
al. to store an image of a wall, but also to modify the control
device of Bias et al. to display an image which is adjusted (by
one or more aspects) to match the wall. The Examiner
specifically states that Bias et al. adjusts an “image” (“wherein
the control apparatus is adapted to adjust one or more aspects of
the image so that the display image blends in with the wall. . .”)
(Final Rejection, p. 4) while Zontrop et al. teaches adjusting an
“image of the wall” such that an image of the wall is displayed
on the screen (Final Rejection, p. 5).
As such, Bias et al. as modified by Zontrop et al. teach that “the
control apparatus is adapted to adjust one or more aspects of the
image of the wall so that the displayed image blends in with the
wall proximate the user interface”, as required by the claims.
Id. at 4—5.
Based on the record before us, we maintain that the Examiner has not
erred in finding the combination of references teaches or suggests the
contested limitation.
Regarding dependent claim 6, which recites “the user interface is
operable to adjust the size and orientation of the displayed image to match
the wall,” the discussion, supra, is applicable. Additionally, as set forth in
our Decision, Zontrop teaches “the portion corresponding with window 44 is
cut out and resized and reshaped in order to obtain the camouflage pattern P
5
Appeal 2016-007924
Application 13/864,560
for display on the display screen of the electronic device.” Decision 7
(citing Zontrop 10:29—32).
In view of the above, we find no error in either the obviousness
rejection of claims 1—21 or in our affirmance of that rejection.
CONCLUSION
Nothing in Appellants’ request has persuaded us that we have
overlooked or misapprehended the arguments made by Appellants.
Accordingly, we deny the request for Rehearing.
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows:
We have CONSIDERED the Request but DENY the request that we
reverse the Examiner as to claims 1—21.
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)(v).
DENIED
6