Ex Parte Stadjuhar

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2013

11593277 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT CHARLES STADJUHAR JR.
____________________

Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-18, 20-23, and 25. Claims 5, 15, 19, and 24 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appellant’s Disclosed Invention
Appellant discloses a sign control system wherein a plurality of
variable messages signs are coupled by local communication links to a
single sign controller, and the sign controller has a direct communication
link to the central office (Abs.). This system reduces the cost and overhead
of previous sign control system designs that employ multiple sign controllers
(Spec. 3: 3-12).
Exemplary Claims
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1, 4, 9 and 17, reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A variable message sign control system used on roadways to inform
motorists of hazards and traffic conditions, comprising:
a central controller;
a sign controller having a direct communication link to the central
controller, the direct link being National Transportation Communication for
Intelligent Transportation Systems compatible;
a plurality of variable message signs receiving a message for display
from the sign controller, wherein each of the plurality of variable message
signs is a permanent sign; and

1 Throughout our decision we refer to the Specification of the Instant
Application (“Spec.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 26,
2010, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 2, 2010, and Appellant’s
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 18, 2010.
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

3
a plurality of local communication links between the sign controller
and the plurality of variable message signs.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the sign driver includes a display
driver and an environmental driver.

9. The system of claim 7, wherein the status information includes
environmental status.

17. The system of claim 16, wherein each of the plurality of variable
message signs has a display driver that reads the display output.

The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13, 18, 20, 21, 23, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haase (U.S. Patent
Publication No. 2005/0231385 A1) in view of Lemelson (US Patent No.
6,317,058 B1) further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art found at
page 1, line 18 to page 2, line 2 of the Specification (hereinafter, “AAPA”).
Ans. 4-9.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 12, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Haase, Lemelson, and AAPA, further in
view of Wampler (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0001796 A1). Ans. 9-
11.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 6-9, 14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haase, Lemelson, and AAPA, further in
view of Dukach (US Patent No. 6,701,143 B1). Ans. 11-13.

Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

4
Appellant’s Contentions2
(1) With regard to representative claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Haase, Lemelson and AAPA, Appellant
makes numerous arguments including:
(a) The combination of Haase and Lemelson is inappropriate to
reject representative claim 1 because (i) Haase describes a variable
message display between standard traffic lights and Lemelson
describes a system for controlling the timing of standard traffic lights
using fuzzy logic (App. Br, 8), and (ii) neither Haase nor Lemelson

2 Appellant argues patentability for claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13, 18- 21, and 23-25
as a group, and discuss only the limitations of claim 1. Claims 1, 10, and 18
are independent, and each set forth subject matter of a direct communication
link between the sign controller and the central controller as required by
independent claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent
claims 2, 3, 11, 13, 19-21, and 23-25. We select claim 1 as representative of
the group of claims (claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13, 18- 21, and 23-25) rejected
under 35 USC § 103(a) over Haase, Lemelson, and AAPA. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Because separate patentability is not argued for claims 6-8 (depending
from independent claim 1) and claims 14 and 16 (depending from
independent claim 10) rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) over Haase,
Lemelson, AAPA, and Dukach, we will decide the appeal of claims 6-8 and
14 (depending from claim 1) and 16 (depending from claim 10 which is
grouped with representative claim 1), on the same basis as representative
claim 1.
Appellant argues patentability for claims 4, 12, and 22 as a group.
Claims 12 and 22 set forth similar subject matter as claim 4. We select
claim 4 as representative of the group of claims 4, 12, and 22 rejected under
35 USC § 103(a) over Haase, Lemelson, AAPA and Wampler pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues patentability for claims 9 and 17 separately.
Accordingly, our analysis herein will only address claims 1, 4, 9, and
17.
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

5
are directed to the problem of having an expensive direct
communication link to every variable message sign from a central
controller (i.e., the problem that the present invention is trying to
solve). (App. Br, 8; Reply Br. 1);
(b) The reference element 118 of Haase (Haase, Fig. 1) is not a
sign controller because (i) the reference element 118 is a user
interface which is part of the remote programming service 120 (i.e.,
the central controller), and (ii) there is no direct NTCIP link or any
link between the reference element 118 (i.e., the sign controller) and
the remote programming service 120 (i.e., the central controller) as
required by representative claim 1 (App. Br. 8-9); and
(c) The Examiner’s Answer selected bits and pieces from prior
patents that might be modified to fit the Examiner’s conclusion,
because Haase shows no link between reference element 118 (i.e., the
sign controller) and the remote programming service 120 (i.e., the
central controller) and the Examiner states that the NTCIP link to the
signs is found in AAPA (Reply Br. 1-2).

(2) With regard to representative claim 4, Appellant contends that
Wampler does not teach environmental driver since the environmental driver
in the Instant Application monitors a multitude of environmental conditions
to (i) construct the environmental status message transmitted to the sign
controller and the central controller, and (ii) perform action on fans and
filters, etc. based on the measurements (App. Br. 10).
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

6
(3) With regard to claim 9, Appellant argues that Dukach does not
teach “environmental status information” as required by claim 9 (App. Br.
11).
(4) With regard to claim 17, Appellant argues that Haase does not
teach “reading the display output” as required by claim 17, because the
specification of the Instant Application teaches the display driver to read the
display output by determining an amount of power each display element is
consuming (App. Br. 11).
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-11)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-2), the following issues are presented on
appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting representative claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Haase, Lemelson, and AAPA, because (i) the combination
of Haase and Lemelson is inappropriate in rejecting representative claim 1,
and/or (ii) the Examiner improperly selected bits and pieces from prior
patents that might be modified to fit the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness (hindsight)?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 4, 12, and 22 because
Wampler does not teach the environmental driver as recited in representative
claim 4?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 9, because Dukach does
not teach “environmental status information”, as recited in claim 9?
(4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 17, because Haase does not teach
“reading the display output”, as recited in claim 17?
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

7
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-11) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 1-2) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-13) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(Ans. 13-15). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of
the references as follows.
Representative Claim 1
With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 4-5) that Haase teaches (i) a computer 104 (i.e., the sign controller)
having a direct wireless communication link 114 to remote programming
service 120 (i.e., the central controller) (Haase, Fig. 1), and (ii) the computer
104 generates display signal that drives the display screen 102 (i.e., the
variable message sign) (Haase, ¶ [0027]). We also agree with the Examiner
that Lemelson teaches a plurality of warning signs 6 (i.e., the variable
message signs) receiving messages from intelligent controller 5 (i.e., the sign
controller) (Lemelson, Fig. 2; col. 9, ll. 23-28). We further agree with the
Examiner’s rationale to combine Haase and Lemelson, namely, the necessity
to place plurality of variable message signs of Haase at an intersection as
taught by Lemelson to allow the drivers approaching from each direction of
the intersection to view the signs (see Ans. 5).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4-5) that AAPA teaches a National
Transportation Communication for Intelligent Transportation Systems
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

8
(“NTCIP”) compatible direct communication link between the sign
controller and the central controller. We further agree with the Examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious to combine AAPA with
Haase and Lemelson based on the rationale set forth by the Examiner,
including using NTCIP compatible wireless link to ensure that the data is
transmitted according to the pre-existing protocol of the art (see Ans. 5 and
14).
Regarding Appellant’s contention (1)(a) supra that the combination of
Haase and Lemelson is inappropriate (see App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 1), we agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 13) that Haase and Lemelson are directed to display
systems that receive information from a remote source. Further, we agree
with the Examiner’s rationale (Ans. 5) to combine Haase and Lemelson,
namely, the necessity to place plurality of variable message signs of Haase at
an intersection as taught by Lemelson to allow the drivers approaching from
each direction of the intersection to view the signs. We also agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 13) that the concept of multiple signs taught by Lemelson is
not influenced by the fuzzy logic employed by the traffic light timing
controller as argued by Appellant.
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.
Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., No. 2010-1290, slip op.
at 12 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Two separate tests
define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same
field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

9
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” Bigio, at 1325. See In Re Klein (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appellant’s argument (Appellant’s contention (1) (a)(ii) supra) that Haase
and Lemelson do not solve the same problem as the present invention is not
persuasive because (i) the claim language does not set forth such a
limitation, and (ii) Haase and Lemelson are from the same field of
Appellant’s invention, namely, traffic control systems for roadways.
Regarding Appellant’s contention (1)(b) supra that the reference
element 118 of Haase is not a sign controller (see App. Br. 8-10), we agree
with the Examiner that the reference element 104 of Haase (Haase, Fig. 1) is
applied as being a sign controller in the rejection of claim 1, as opposed to
Appellant’s interpretation (that reference element 118 is applied by the
Examiner as being a sign controller). We also agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 14) that the computer 104 (i.e., the sign controller) is connected to the
remote programming service 120 (i.e., the central controller) via a cellular
interface 114 (Haase, Fig. 1).
Regarding Appellant’s contention (1)(c) supra that the Examiner’s
Answer selected bits and pieces from prior patents that might be modified to
fit the Examiner’s conclusion (see Reply Br. 1-2), we agree with the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to combine
AAPA with Haase and Lemelson based on the rationale set forth by the
Examiner, including using NTCIP compatible wireless link to ensure that the
data is transmitted according to pre-existing protocol of the art (see Ans. 4-5
and 13-15).
In summary, Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-
9) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-2) do not convince us that Haase, Lemelson,
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

10
and AAPA were improperly combined to make the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1 over Haase, Lemelson, and AAPA set forth by the
Examiner.
Appellant relies upon the arguments made with respect to claim 1 for
claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20-23, and 25. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20-23, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Representative Claim 4
With regard to representative claim 4, we agree with the Examiner
that Wampler teaches a driver that monitors the position of the display and
time of day (which are both environmental factors), as required by claim 4.
While the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim
term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims.
CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Appellant argues (Appellant’s contention (2) supra) that Wampler
fails to teach an environmental driver, because the specification of the
Instant Application requires the environmental driver to monitor a multitude
of environmental conditions to (i) construct the environmental status
message transmitted to the sign controller and the central controller, and (ii)
perform action on fans and filters etc. based on the measurements.
However, the argued features of the environmental driver are not presented
in representative claim 4.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 4 (and claims 12 and 22 grouped therewith) based upon
the combined teachings and suggestions of Haase, Lemelson, AAPA, and
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

11
Wampler.
Claim 9
With regard to claim 9, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 15) that the
mobile unit’s location information in Dukach is environmental status
information, as recited in claim 9.
Regarding Appellant’s contention (3) supra that DukacH does not
teach “environmental status information” as required by claim 9 (see App.
Br. 11), we find that Appellant failed to present any argument as to why the
mobile unit’s location information in DukacH cannot be considered
environmental status information.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 9 based
upon the combined teachings and suggestions of Haase, Lemelson, AAPA,
and Dukach.
Claim 17
With regard to claim 17, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation
of “display driver that reads the display output” to mean that the display
driver processes the display data to be displayed on the sign, which is taught
by Haase (Haase, ¶ [0027]).
Regarding Appellant’s contention (4) supra that Haase does not teach
“reading the display output” as required by claim 17 (see App. Br. 11),
because the specification of the Instant Application teaches the display
driver to read the display output by determining an amount of power each
display element is consuming, we note that the limitations of the
Specification, as argued by Appellant, cannot be imported into the claims.
CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
Appeal 2010-009791
Application 11/593,277

12
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 17 based
upon the combined teachings and suggestions of Haase, Lemelson, AAPA,
and Dukach.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in combining Haase, Lemelson and
AAPA to reject representative claim 1, or in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-8, 11,
13, 14, 16, 18, 20-23, and 25 under § 103(a).
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative claim 4
because Wampler teaches environmental driver as required by representative
claim 4.
(3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9 because Dukach
teaches “environmental status information”, as recited in claim 9.
(4) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 17 because Haase
teaches “reading the display output”, as recited in claim 17.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-18, 20-23, and 25
are affirmed.
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

tkl