Ex Parte Lippman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2018

14533443 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/533,443 11/05/2014
113140 7590 11/19/2018
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Allan Lippman
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83475277(65080-1412) 1007
EXAMINER
WANG,JACKK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2018 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):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK ALLAN LIPPMAN,
MAN GALA A. JAYASURIYA, JAY ANTHI RAO,
and ERIC H. WINGFIELD
Appeal2018-002189
Application 14/533,443 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to "[ a ]n alarm system for a vehicle, such as a
bicycle, [that] includes a touch sensor electrically connected to a vehicle
frame" outputting "an alarm signal based on a proximity of a person to the
vehicle frame." Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002189
Application 14/533,443
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. An alarm system comprising:
a touch sensor electrically connected to a vehicle frame
coated with an electrically conductive material, wherein the
touch sensor is configured to output an alarm signal based on a
proximity of a person to the vehicle frame;
a communication module configured to receive signals
from a remote device; and
a controller programmed to selectively enable and disable
the touch sensor in response to signals received from the remote
device.
Rejections
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Zhang (CN 203921015 U; Nov. 5, 2014)
and Lee et al. (US 2015/0291254 Al; Oct. 15, 2015). Final Act. 2.
Claims 4--6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over
the combination of Zhang, Lee, and Alameh et al. (US 2010/0167783 Al;
July 1, 2010). Final Act. 4.
Claims 10-12 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Zhang, Lee, and Holtrop (US 6,060,982;
May 9, 2000). Final Act. 5.
Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over
the combination of Zhang, Lee, Holtrop, and Alameh. Final Act. 8.
2
Appeal2018-002189
Application 14/533,443
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Lee teaches or suggests "a touch
sensor electrically connected to a vehicle frame coated with an electrically
conductive material," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "a touch sensor electrically connected to a vehicle
frame coated with an electrically conductive material." Independent claims
10 and 19 recite commensurate vehicle frames coated with an electrically
conductive material but more specifically identify the vehicle as a "bicycle."
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses "the touch sensor is
incorporated into the handlebar." Ans. 3 (citing Lee ,r 51) (emphasis
added).
Appellants argue that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
bicycle "frame" excludes components such as handlebars. App. Br. 5-6, 8-
9. Appellants provide various extrinsic evidence demonstrating that the
"frame" is a separate component from handlebars. Id. at 6.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to explain why
a bicycle "frame" includes the handlebar. Although the Examiner quotes
Wikipedia for describing a bicycle as "having two wheels attached to a
frame" (Ans. 3), we agree with Appellants that this description fails to
address whether the handlebar is part of the frame. Reply Br. 2. To the
contrary, Lee itself distinguishes between "frame 11" and "handle 1 7." Lee
,r 44. Thus, the Examiner fails to show how Lee teaches or suggests "a
touch sensor electrically connected to a vehicle frame."
We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to show a
vehicle frame "coated with an electrically conductive material." In
3
Appeal2018-002189
Application 14/533,443
particular, the Examiner finds "Lee et al. teaches a vehicle frame coated with
an electrically conductive material (polymer) [0051]." Final Act. 3. The
cited paragraph, however, discloses "the capacitive type touch sensor 150
contains any one or more of an indium tin oxide, a conductive polymer, and
a metal mesh as a material of a transparent electrode, as non-limiting
examples." Lee ,r 51. Thus, Lee discloses the "touch sensor ... contains ...
a conductive polymer ... as a material of a transparent electrode," but the
Examiner fails to explain how this material within the touch sensor teaches
or suggests a coating on a vehicle frame.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
10, and 19, and their dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-20.
REVERSED
4