13920198 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

Ex Parte Pandey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2018

13920198 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/920, 198 06/18/2013 AP ARNA PANDEY 22917 7590 03/30/2018 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. IP Law Docketing 500 W. Monroe 43rd Floor Chicago, IL 60661 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. PATCM16363-US-PRI 2090 EXAMINER NAWAZ, TALHAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2018 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): USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AP ARNA PANDEY, HARISH BHANDIWAD, and RANDYL.EKL Appeal2017-008742 1 Application 13/920, 198 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Motorola Solutions, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal2017-008742 Application 13/920, 198 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to "displaying video ... on one of many displays in a geographically correct fashion." Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method for a display device to display a field of view (POV) captured by a camera, the method comprising the steps of: receiving by the display device the POV from a camera; determining by the display device a location of the POV captured by the camera; determining by the display device an orientation of the display device; determining by the display device the position of the display device with respect to other display devices; and determining by the display device whether or not to display the POV received from the camera based on the location of the POV, the orientation of the display device, and the position of the display device with respect to the other display devices. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Surber (US 2011/0291918 Al; Dec. 1, 2011) and Kussel (US 2014/0184799 Al; July 3, 2014). Final Act. 4. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error, because "Su[ r ]ber simply fails to teach or otherwise suggest that one display device determines what to display based on its position with respect to other display devices" as required by independent claim 1. Br. 11. According to 2 Appeal2017-008742 Application 13/920, 198 Appellants, "[t]he system of Surber is designed to show the user a field of view that would exist beyond the walls of the vehicle," and thus "in Surber, there is no need for one display to know its position with respect to any other display." Br. 8. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. "The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "determining by the display device the position of the display device with respect to other display devices." Surber, as relied on by the Examiner for the disputed limitation, teaches using various displays in a vehicle surrounded by sensor arrays, the displays including "one or more fixed displays" (Surber i-f 3 8) and "[ o ]ne or more helmet displays" (Surber i-f 40). See Final Act. 5. Although Surber discloses the helmet displays "may be operable to display digital images of the external surroundings of the entire perimeter of [the] vehicle" (Surber i-f 40), the helmet displays imagery "as if the walls of vehicle were substantially transparent" (Surber i-f 41 ). Thus, we agree with Appellants that the helmet display does not "need to know the positions of other display devices," as the helmet is only reliant on the position of the exterior sensors, and not on the position of any items (such as displays) inside the vehicle. Br. 10. In the Answer, the Examiner further relies on Surber' s teaching of substituting damaged sensor arrays with working sensor arrays that have 3 Appeal2017-008742 Application 13/920, 198 overlapping fields of view. See Surber i-f 26; Ans. 14.2 We agree with Appellants the sensor substitution does not indicate any change----or determination----ofthe displays used. See Br. 10-11; see also Surber i-fi-126- 28. Surber teaches determining various sensor positions with respect to other sensors, rather than determining a display position with respect to another display, as claimed. See Br. 8; Ans. 14; Surber i-f 54. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants "[ n ]owhere [in Surber] is it taught or suggested that one display device know[ s] its position with respect to another display device," as claimed. Br. 8-9. The Examiner does not rely on Kussel for determining a position of a display. See Final Act. 5. As such, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, and the limitations similarly recited by independent claims 8 and 15. We do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of these claims, or the claims dependent thereon. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 2 We note the Examiner incorrectly refers to a "damaged display" in Surber when citing Surber's damage mitigation teachings. Ans. 14. Surber is silent regarding damage to displays. See Surber i-f 26. 4