Ex Parte Kadowaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

12888157 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
12/888,157 09/22/2010 Jun KADOWAKI Q120938 3878
23373 7590 01/03/2017
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN KADOWAKI, KAZUYA WATANABE,
TAKASHI YAMANAKA, and YUMI YAMANAKA
Appeal 2016-001870
Application 12/888,1571
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—5, 7—10, and 13—15, which constitute all of the pending claims.
Claims 6, 11, and 12 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as AISIN SEIKI KABUSHIKI
KAISHA. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-001870
Application 12/888,157
Introduction
Appellants state their claimed invention “relates to a vehicle
peripheral display device provided with an image acquisition unit for
acquiring a peripheral image captured from a vehicle by an image pickup
device provided to the vehicle, and a display device for displaying the
peripheral image, the display device being provided inside the vehicle
cabin.” (Spec. 11.) Claim 1 is representative:
1. A vehicle peripheral display device comprising:
an image acquisition unit for acquiring a peripheral
image of a vehicle, the peripheral image being captured by an
image pickup device provided to the vehicle;
a display device for displaying the peripheral image, the
display device being provided inside a vehicle cabin; and
an indicator line output unit for causing an indicator line
serving as a guide for a driver during a driving operation to be
displayed superimposed on the peripheral image, a side surface
portion on the side of the indicator line close to the image
pickup device being added to the indicator line for parking
assist,
wherein the indicator line output unit adds and displays a
shadow portion adjacent to the side surface portion.
(App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).)
References and Rejections
Claims 1—5, 7—10, and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Hideaki et al. (JP 2007—333502; Dec. 27, 2007) and
Sakakibara et al. (US 7,643,935 B2; Jan 5, 2010). (Non-Final Act. 2—8.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue “Hideaki in view of Sakakibara does not disclose or
suggest all three of an indicator line, a side surface portion on the side of the
2
Appeal 2016-001870
Application 12/888,157
indicator line, and a shadow portion adjacent to the side surface portion
being displayed” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 6.) Appellants contend
“the display image guide Sla and the side thick portion LMa thereof
disclosed by Hideaki (FIGs. 8-10) correspond to the claimed indicator line
and side surface portion, [but] the image of Hideaki does not additionally
include a third portion, i.e., a shadow portion. Nor does Sakakibara cure
this deficiency.” (Id. at 7.)
The Examiner answers by finding “it would have been considered
obvious and/or a simple design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art employing the above teachings to recognize that the side
surface/thick portion could be displayed as a dark/shadow/ black portion in
order to enhance the depth adjacent to a side surface portion.” (Ans. 9-10.)
The Examiner further finds “conventional image editing software is
fundamentally well known and fully utilized in the art for image
editing/coloring such that it would have been obviously easy to darken (such
as using a black/shadow color) the side surfacdthick portion so that the side
surface/thick portion is displayed as a dark/shadow/black portion.” (Id. at
10.) The Examiner reasons that, therefore, it would have been obvious “to
simply recognize that the thick portion could very well be displayed as a
dark/shadow/black portion (thus can’t be considered as a novel feature) in
order to enhance the depth adjacent to the side surface portion.” (Id.)
Appellants respond that Hideaki as modified by the Examiner still
shows only two elements for the recited “three of (1) an indicator line, (2) a
side surface portion on the side of the indicator line, and (3) a shadow
portion adjacent to the side surface portion.” (Reply Br. 6.)
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of Examiner error. Although it is
well established that multiple claim limitations may read on a single
3
Appeal 2016-001870
Application 12/888,157
structure (see, e.g., In re Kelley, 305 F.2d 909, 915—16 (CCPA 1962)), such
a mapping is only permissible if the claim does not require separate
structures for the multiple claim limitations. Because a single entity cannot
be adjacent to itself, claim 1 ’s requirement for the “shadow portion” to be
displayed “adjacent the side surface portion” necessarily requires two
different portions. In the Examiner’s modified version of Hideaki, however,
the side surface portion is also the shadow portion. To map this modified
version to claim 1, it is necessary to read “adjacent to the side surface
portion” out of the claim. In other words, the Examiner’s rejection ignores
claim 1 ’s requirement that the “shadow portion [be] adjacent to the side
surface portion.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiners rejection of claim 1.
We also, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—5, 7—
10, and 13—15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1—5, 7—10,
and 13—15. 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)(iv).
REVERSED
4