Ex Parte Huber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2013

11403427 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TERRY LEE HUBER, DALE THOMAS RODDA,
JOHN HESCH, JR., and TIMOTHY WILLIAM RAGER
____________________

Appeal 2011-003818
Application 11/403,427
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003818
Application 11/403,427

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A universal defrost timer (UDT), comprising:
a liquid crystal display (LCD) defining a plurality of
discretely user selectable segments thereon, each segment
corresponding to a predetermined time period;
a plurality of indicators operative to provide an indication
of a current mode of operation;
a rotatable user interface knob; and
a controller operatively coupled to the plurality of
indicators, to the LCD to drive the plurality of segments and to
the rotatable user interface knob; and
wherein the controller sequentially illuminates the
plurality of segments in response to receiving input from the
user interface knob indicating rotation thereof.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bos (US 4,411,139; iss. Oct. 25, 1983); and
2. Claims 2-13, 15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bos and Heeks (US 4,771,409; iss. Sep. 13, 1988).

Appeal 2011-003818
Application 11/403,427

3
OPINION
Claims 1, 14, and 16 – Anticipation
The Examiner finds that Bos discloses each of the features recited in
claim 1. Ans. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the hour/minute
display (24) in Figure 1 of Bos discloses the claimed segments and that the
controller sequentially illuminates the plurality of segments in response to
receiving input from the user interface knob (S1) in Bos. Id. The Examiner
explains that the plain meaning of the term segment is “each of the parts into
which a thing is or may be divided,” as found in the Oxford English
Dictionary. Ans. 10-11. The Examiner also explains that claim 1 does not
require that the user interface knob is the only input that causes the
controller to sequentially illuminate the plurality of segments, only that the
user interface knob is one of the inputs. Ans. 12.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not applied the proper
meaning of the term segment, and has instead improperly relied on a
common dictionary definition of segment. Br. 4-6. Appellants initially
contend that the meaning of segment employed by the Examiner is not
consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning given by one skilled in
the art. Br. 4-5. Appellants explain that Bos defines segments as the seven
discrete segments that make up the figure eight pattern used to form the hour
digit and the minute digit on the display and, therefore, the digits themselves
cannot constitute the claimed segments. Br. 4. Appellants further contend
that the term segment is specifically defined in Appellants’ Specification.
Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants explain that an embodiment of the claimed
segments is shown in Figure 1 and that the shape and circular arrangement
are discussed throughout the Specification. Id.
Appeal 2011-003818
Application 11/403,427

4
Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification and consistent with the interpretation those
skilled in the art would reach. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The discussion of segments in Bos relied on by
Appellants is simply a use of the term in a single example. Further,
Appellants do not point to, and we do not see, any portion of the
Specification that provides a special definition of the term segment.
Appellants simply point to a specific embodiment of segments (118). See
Br. 5. After review of Appellants’ Specification and Drawings, we cannot
find where segment is defined in a manner imparting Appellants’ proffered
definition. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (an
inventor must define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
and precision” in order to be his own lexicographer, as opposed to merely
describing “in a general fashion certain features”).
Appellants have failed to persuade us that the plain meaning of
segment employed by the Examiner is inconsistent with the Appellants’
Specification or with the interpretation one skilled in the art would reach.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings when the plain meaning
of segment is applied. See Br. 6-7.
Appellants additionally contend that rotation of the user interface
knob (S1) does not cause the controller to illuminate the segments in Bos.
Br. 7. Appellants explain that the user interface knob (S1) is used to select a
mode and then switch (S2) is pressed to increment the setting (i.e.,
illuminate the segments). Id. Appellants appear to take the position that
claim 1 requires the user interface knob to provide an input that directly
results in the illumination of the segments with no additional inputs required.
Appeal 2011-003818
Application 11/403,427

5
However, claim 1 does not require that the user interface knob is the only
input that causes the controller to sequentially illuminate the plurality of
segments, only that the user interface knob is one of the inputs. The
segments (hours/minutes) in Bos are sequentially illuminated by the
combination of selecting a mode with the user interface knob (S1) and
pressing the advance button (S2). Bos, col. 6, ll. 23-32. Thus, the segments
are illuminated in response to an input from the user interface knob (S1) and
an input from the advance button (S2) in Bos.
For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of Examiner error
and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 14 and 16 depend from
claim 1 and are not argued separately. See Br. 7, 8. Claims 14 and 16 fall
with claim 1.

Claims 2-13, 15, and 17-22 – Obviousness
Claims 2-13, 15, 17, and 18
Claims 2-13, 15, 17, and 18 depend from claim 1. Appellants reiterate
the arguments presented above regarding the patentability of claim 1 and
further contend that Heeks fails to overcome the deficiencies of Bos. Br. 8.
We disagree that Bos is deficient in rendering the features of claim 1
unpatentable for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 2-13, 15, 17, and 18 as being obvious based on the
combination of Bos and Heeks.

Claims 19-22
Claim 19 recites “segments” similar to claim 1 and additionally
defines the display as a circular clock face. The Examiner relies on Bos as
Appeal 2011-003818
Application 11/403,427

6
disclosing the claimed segments and relies on Heeks as disclosing a circular
display with selectively lit segments. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner reasons that
it would have been obvious to use the display from Heeks in place of the
display in Bos in order to more accurately reflect available time segments.
Ans. 6. Appellants argue that the term segment is interpreted improperly by
the Examiner. Br. 8. We do not find this argument persuasive for the
reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. Appellants further argue that if
Bos were modified to include discretely illuminable segments, Bos would be
unsatisfactory for its intended purposed because it could no longer form
individual numbers by illuminating a set of segments. Id. This argument is
not persuasive because the modification proposed by the Examiner includes
a substitution replacing the clock face in Bos (including the hours/minutes
segments) for the clock face from Heeks (including the circular display with
segments). See Ans. 13.
Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the
rejection of claim 19. Claims 20-22 depend from claim 19 and are not
argued separately. See Br. 8-9. Claims 20-22 fall with claim 19.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 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

hh