Ex Parte Field et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2017

13403884 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 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.
13/403,884 02/23/2012 Michael Field 780139.00366 3382
26710 7590
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
LU, JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/10/2017 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL FIELD and PAUL P. MCCABE
Appeal 2015-002990
Application 13/403,8841
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify The Raymond Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-002990
Application 13/403,884
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A vehicle comprising:
a vehicle frame;
an optical device mounted on said frame and including a
lens having an exterior surface exposed to ambient air
surrounding said vehicle;
a first temperature sensor sensing air temperature of said
ambient air surrounding the vehicle;
a second temperature sensor sensing a temperature of
said lens;
a humidity sensor sensing moisture content of air
proximal said lens; and
an exhaust directing a gas at said lens exterior surface in
response to said ambient air temperature sensed by said first
temperature sensor, said temperature of said lens sensed by said
second temperature sensor, and said moisture content sensed by
said humidity sensor.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—6, 8—16, and 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 6,170,955 Bl, iss. Jan. 9,
2001) (“Campbell”) andNakajima (US 2010/0163220 Al, pub. July 1,
2010).
II. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Campbell, Nakajima, and Perazzo (US 2009/0260795 Al,
pub. Oct. 22, 2009).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
2
Appeal 2015-002990
Application 13/403,884
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 11 are argued as a group. Appeal Br. 4—6.
Claim 1 is selected for analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Appellants argue that claim 1 was rejected erroneously, because
the combined teachings of Campbell and Nakajima fail to teach or suggest
the recited features concerning “ambient air surrounding said vehicle,”
because the references relate to an optical device within the interior of a
vehicle (Campbell) and the interior surface of a windshield (Nakajima).
Appeal Br. 4—6.
According to the Examiner:
[B]y opening vehicle windows, air circulates between inside
and outside of the vehicle. The vehicle is surrounded by both
inside and outside air. The air in the interior of the vehicle is
the same air surrounding] the exterior of the vehicle when
window is open. Therefore, the exterior surface of the optical
device lens will be exposed to ambient air surrounding the
vehicle because the ambient air will be circulated around the
vehicle.
Answer 7.
Even taking the cited references to include the argued limitations, here
the Examiner’s analysis, however, lacks articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings without impermissible hindsight. “[Rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting with
approval In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, the reasons
for the cited combination of references set forth at pages 4 and 5 of the Final
3
Appeal 2015-002990
Application 13/403,884
Action in order to meet the limitations of the claims lacks proper articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings without impermissible hindsight.
More specifically, the Examiner concludes only that the combination would
have been obvious because applying Nakajima’s method would have been a
“simple application.” Final Action 4; see also Answer 6. However, the
simplicity of the proposed combination and reasoning given does not,
provide a sufficient reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have made the combination without impermissible hindsight.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 11 or, for the same reasons, their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
4