Ex Parte Lanham

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2015

11833817 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2015)

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.
11/833,817 08/03/2007 Randall James Lanham 57489-335881 8545
71850 7590 03/26/2015
RUSSO & DUCKWORTH , LLP
9090 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE , SECOND FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92618
EXAMINER
PHAM, VIET DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2699
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RANDALL JAMES LANHAM
____________________

Appeal 2013-000424
Application 11/833,817
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–18, 20–22, 24–26, and 28–31. Claims 19, 23, 27, and 32–34 are canceled.
App. Br. 14–21. -We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a mobile video display screen
attached to a vehicle and with an operational sensor and controller that can
change the information displayed on the screen in response to the operation
of the vehicle. App. Br. 2–3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2013-000424
Application 11/833,817

2
1. A system comprising:

a vehicle;

a video display attached to the vehicle wherein the said
video display is positioned in a housing;

a source of video information for display upon the video
display;

an operational sensor device wherein the operational
sensor device detects changes in the operation of the vehicle
selected from the group consisting of application of the brakes,
application of the accelerator, application of the blinkers,
application of a direction-indicator lamp, and change of
bearing;

a controller connected to said video display, said video
information and said operational sensor device, said controller
operative to control the display of said video information upon
said video display and for changing displayed information in
response to detection by said operational sensor device of a
change of operation of the vehicle; and

a power source for providing power to said video display
and said controller.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 8,
15, 16, 18, 20–22, 24–26, and 28–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of the combination of Salehi (WO 2004/070690 A1;
pub. Aug. 19, 2004) and Kawai (US 6,577,334 B1; iss. June 10, 2003).
App. Br. 7; 13.
Relying on the same arguments advanced with respect to claim 1,
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 7 under
Appeal 2013-000424
Application 11/833,817

3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the combination of
Salehi, Kawai, and Rinzler (US 6,282,822 B1; iss. Sept. 4, 2001). App. Br.
7; 13.
Relying on the same arguments advanced with respect to claim 1,
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9–14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the combination of
Salehi, Kawai, and Henke (US 5,897,158; iss. Apr. 27, 1999). App. Br. 7;
13.
Relying on the same arguments advanced with respect to claim 1,
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the combination of Salehi,
Kawai, Zheng (US 2007/0209251 A1; pub. Sept. 13, 2007), and Dukach (US
6,812,851 B1; iss. Nov. 2, 2004). App. Br. 7–8; 13.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred, but we find Appellant’s arguments
unpersuasive. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response and
analysis supported by sufficient evidence based on the teachings of the cited
prior art. We adopt as our own (1) the reasoning, findings, and conclusions
set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action (mailed September 29, 2011)
from which this Appeal is taken, and (2) the reasoning, findings, and
conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed July 18, 2012). We highlight the following analysis for emphasis.
The Examiner cites Salehi for each limitation of claim 1 except the
claimed operational sensor, for which the Examiner cites Kawai. Ans. 5–7.
Appeal 2013-000424
Application 11/833,817

4
Salehi discloses a display screen mounted on a vehicle for displaying
advertisements or other information. See Salehi Fig. 1, Abstract. Of
particular reference to the Examiner’s rejection and Appellant’s arguments,
Salehi states “[t]he static display on the rear screen may be maintained when
the vehicle is travelling and may be switchable automatically or when
initiated to video when the vehicle is stationary.” Salehi p. 12, ll. 9–11.
Citing that disclosure in Salehi among others, the Examiner finds that
Salehi teaches a controller that changes displayed information in response to
a change of operation of the vehicle to which the display is attached. Ans.
5–7 (citing Salehi p. 12, ll. 9–11). Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Salehi teaches a controller that changes the displayed information when the
vehicle transitions from moving to stationary and, because Salehi teaches
that the display is static when the vehicle is moving and is “automatically”
switchable to video when the vehicle is stationary, Salehi inherently teaches
an operational sensor. Ans. 21–22. The Examiner additionally cites
Kawai’s disclosures of break sensors, acceleration sensors, and blinker
sensors as evidence of operational sensor devices that were known in the art
at the time of Appellant’s invention. Ans. 7, 21–22.
Appellant argues that the statement quoted above from Salehi “does
not mean that the controller automatically alters the video when the vehicle
transitions from moving to stationary.” App. Br. 12; accord Reply Br. 5.
Further, Appellant argues that the transition from moving to stationary “is
not a change of operation which would be detected by the operational
sensors of [Appellant’s c]laims 1 and 26.” App. Br. 12. Moreover,
Appellant argues that, while “Kawai does disclose operational sensor
devices,” Kawai does not suggest “a controller operative to control display
Appeal 2013-000424
Application 11/833,817

5
of video information in response to detection by said operational sensor
device of a change of operation of the vehicle.” App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6.
We find Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. Appellant’s
arguments center on a narrow reading of the sentence quoted above from
Salehi and fail to address what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from the teaching of Salehi, and, more importantly, from the
combined teachings of Salehi and Kawai. Salehi teaches computer units
with controls that provide content to a vehicle-mounted display (Salehi
Abstract), and Salehi teaches that the displays may present static images
while the vehicle is moving and may be “switchable automatically” from to
video content when the vehicle is stationary. Salehi 12, ll. 9–11; accord
Salehi 10, ll. 14–19. Also, as the Examiner finds, Kawai teaches sensors
that detect a vehicle’s operational changes such as brake sensors, accelerator
sensors, and blinker sensors. Ans. 7 (citing Kawai col. 3, ll. 21–26; col. 11,
ll. 51–62). We agree with the Examiner that combining the operational
sensors disclosed in Kawai with the display system taught by Salehi would
have been within the ordinary skill of and obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. See Ans. 5–7, 19–22; see
also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007) (where
combining familiar items and known options least to anticipated success, it
is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2–18, 20–22, 24–26, and 28–31, which were not independently
argued. App. Br. 13.
Appeal 2013-000424
Application 11/833,817

6

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–18, 20–
22, 24–26, and 28–31 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh