Ex Parte Dellock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

14684518 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

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.
14/684,518 04/13/2015 Paul Kenneth Dellock 83517397 6318
121691 7590 03/01/2018
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LEON VIET Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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):
u spto @ iplaw 1. net
laura @ iplaw 1. net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL KENNETH DELLOCK, STUART C. SALTER,
KEITH A. HOELSCHER, MICHAEL A. MUSLEH, HARRY LOBO, and
MARY BETH ANGOTTI
Appeal 2017-008762
Application 14/684,518
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 3—7, and 9—19
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-008762
Application 14/684,518
Introduction
The invention is directed to “an animated rear-vision mirror-mounted
indicator such as a turn signal indicator which is relatively un-complex in
design and which does not require bulky electronics for operation.”
Specification, paragraph 4.
Illustrative Claim
1. A warning indicator system for a vehicle, comprising:
an indicator for providing visible signals within a
reflective surface of a rear-vision mirror, operatively connected
to at least a turn signal control system of the vehicle;
wherein the indicator comprises a plurality of images
activated sequentially to present an animated image to a viewer,
and
wherein the plurality of images are provided by a
plurality of printed LED symbols disposed adjacent to one
another within the rear-vision mirror reflective surface.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 3—7, and 9-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Robison (US Patent Application Publication
2003/0007362 Al; published January 9, 2003). Final Action 4—8.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 30, 2017), the Reply Brief (May
26, 2017), the Final Action (mailed September 1, 2016), and the Answer
(mailed March 28, 2017) for the respective details.
2
Appeal 2017-008762
Application 14/684,518
Appellants argue, “the Examiner ignores the express terms of the
independent claims, which explicitly recite ‘a plurality of images activated
sequentially to present an animated image to a viewer. Appeal Brief 11.
Appellants further argue that “nowhere does Robison even remotely
contemplate that the plurality of images are activated sequentially ‘to present
an animated image to a viewer’” and “[t]he sequentially activated ‘chevron’
image shown in Robison simply does not qualify as an ‘animated image’
such as a running or galloping horse detailed in Appellants’ Specification.”
Appeal Brief 12.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Claims are
interpreted as broadly as is reasonable and consistent with the Specification,
In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002), while “taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification,” In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and
without reading limitations from examples given in the Specification into the
claims, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321—22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Robison
discloses in paragraph 9, that the FEDs of the animated image “are
illuminated in a sequential manner starting with an outer most pair of FEDs
to an inner most FED.” Answer 3, 8—9. Further, the independent claims
recite a non-descriptive animated image, therefore, we find the claimed
animated image reads upon Robison’s animated image in the shape of a
chevron. See Final Action 4 (citing Robison, Figures 1 and 5).
Appellants contend, “the Action fails to articulate any reason based on
a rational underpinning as to why it would have been obvious to modify
Robison by incorporating printed FEDs” because the action “merely stated
3
Appeal 2017-008762
Application 14/684,518
that it would have been obvious ‘to use printed LEDs in place of standard
LEDs to reduce the size of a structure since they are known to be thinner and
more flexible.’ See Office Action dated 9-1-2016, pp. 4-5.'” Appeal Brief
12—13. Appellants further contend, “the Examiner’s statement for the
combination cannot qualify as an articulated reason because at best, the
statement simply makes unfounded, assumptions about the potential benefits
of the proposed combination.” Appeal Brief 13.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments and find the Examiner’s
reasoning sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See
Answer 10—11. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991 )\ In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner can satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
Appellants argue, “[n]ot only is Robison a complete teaching having
no need for the ‘printed LEDs’ but modifying Robison as proposed by the
Examiner would require a substantial redesign and change the principle of
operation.” Appeal Brief 13. We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive. See Answer 11—12.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
4
Appeal 2017-008762
Application 14/684,518
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Moreover, as the Examiner points out, Robison
discloses other embodiments lacking the features identified by Appellants,
thereby demonstrating that the modifications of Robison would not require
substantial redesign or change its principle of operation. Answer 11—12.
Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3—7, and 9-19 not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3—7, and 9-19 is
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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
5