Ex Parte Suman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

14286012 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

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.
14/286,012 05/23/2014 Danny L. Suman 20111174D1 GEN010
P577B
4785
28469 7590 09/19/2017
CENTEX CORPORATION
600 NORTH CENTENNIAL STREET
ZEELAND, MI 49464
EXAMINER
REISNER, NOAM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 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):
ptomail @priceheneveld.com
uspto@gentex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANNY L. SUMAN, LUKE W. KOOPS, WILLIAM L. TONAR,
DANNY L. MINIKEY JR., KRISTOPHER R. GREEN, and
TIMOTHY L. PAWLOWSKI
Appeal 2017-001927
Application 14/286,012
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 11, and 13—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 23, 2014; Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”) dated September 18, 2015; Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) dated February 16, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated
September 16, 2016; and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated
November 16, 2016.
2 Appellant is Applicant, Gentex Corporation, which according to the
Appeal Brief, also is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001927
Application 14/286,012
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an imaging device enclosure
which may be used on vehicles. Spec. 12. Independent claims 1, 6, and 14
are reproduced from the Claims Appendix of Appellant’s Appeal Brief
below, with italics added to emphasize key recitations in dispute:
1. An imaging device assembly for a vehicle comprising:
a housing including vertical walls;
an imaging device disposed in the housing and rotatable
downward less than 90 degrees from a stowed position in which
the optical axis of the imaging device is horizontally aligned to
a deployed position;
biasing members operably coupling the imaging device
to the housing, the biasing members urging the imaging device
to the stowed position;
a cam operably coupled to the imaging device;
a motor disposed in the housing and connected with the
cam, wherein activation of the motor rotates the cam to a first
position corresponding with the stowed position of the imaging
device, and wherein subsequent activation of the motor rotates
the cam to a second position corresponding with the deployed
position of the imaging device; and
a door disposed below the imaging device, the door being
connected with a flexible support such that the door can be
urged downward by the imaging device when the imaging
device rotates from the stowed position to the deployed
position.
6. An imaging device assembly for a vehicle comprising:
a housing including an upper portion with vertical walls
and a lower portion;
an imaging device disposed in the lower portion of the
housing and downwardly rotatable less than 90 degrees from a
horizontal stowed position to a deployed position;
biasing members that urge the imaging device to the
stowed position',
a cam operably coupled to the imaging device;
2
Appeal 2017-001927
Application 14/286,012
a motor disposed in the upper portion of the housing and
connected with the cam, wherein activation of the motor rotates
the cam to a first position corresponding with the stowed
position of the imaging device, and wherein subsequent
activation of the motor rotates the cam to a second position
corresponding with the deployed position of the imaging
device;
a door disposed below the imaging device and configured
to be urged downward by the imaging device when the imaging
device rotates from the stowed position to the deployed
position.
14. An imaging device assembly for a vehicle comprising:
a housing including an upper portion with vertical walls
and a lower portion;
an imaging device disposed at least partially in the lower
portion of the housing and rotatable between a horizontal
stowed position and a deployed position;
biasing members operably coupling the imaging device
to the housing, the biasing members urging the imaging device
to the stowed position;
a door disposed below the housing and configured to
downwardly rotate when the imaging device moves to the
deployed position',
a flexible support disposed between the housing and the
door that allows the door to be urged downward when the
imaging device rotates to the deployed position;
a cam disposed in the upper portion of the housing and in
abutting contact with a cam engagement surface of the imaging
device; and
a motor disposed in the upper portion of the housing and
including a drive shaft connected with the cam, wherein
activation of the motor rotates the cam to a first position
corresponding with the stowed position of the imaging device,
and wherein subsequent activation of the motor rotates the cam
to a second position corresponding with the deployed position
of the imaging device, the imaging device maintaining position
within the vertical walls when moving between the stowed and
deployed positions.
3
Appeal 2017-001927
Application 14/286,012
REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 13—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schuetz,4
Lang,5 and Izabel.6
II. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Schuetz, Lang, Izabel,
and Boers.7
OPINION
Rejection I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellant presents arguments under
separate headings corresponding to claims grouped with their respective
independent claim, but relies on the same arguments for each group. See
App. Br. 10-15. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select
claim 1 as representative. Claims 6, 11, and 13—19 stand or fall with claim
1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Schuetz discloses an
imaging device assembly comprising an imaging device and a door, each of
which is rotatable from a stowed to a deployed position. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner points to Figure 1 in Schuetz, and finds that the door is rotatable
“downward” when Schuetz’s assembly is oriented by rotation of ninety
degrees relative to the orientation shown in Schuetz’s Figure 1. Id.', Ans. 3—
3 Final Act. 3—9.
4 US 7,891,886 B2, issued February 22, 2011 (“Schuetz”).
5 US 7,355,629 B2, issued April 8, 2008 (“Lang”).
6 US 2006/0256459 Al, published November 16, 2006 (“Izabel”).
7 US 5,418,567, issued May 23, 1995 (“Boers”).
4
Appeal 2017-001927
Application 14/286,012
5. The Examiner further finds that Lang provides evidence that one of
ordinary skill would have had a reason to modify Schuetz so that the door is
urged downward (i.e., opened) by movement of the imaging device from the
stowed to the deployed position. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner additionally
finds that Lang and Izabel provide evidence that one of ordinary skill would
have had a reason to provide biasing members tending to urge the imaging
device and door to their stowed position. Id.
Appellant argues that reorientation of Schuetz’s assembly would
render the device inoperable because the door would “simply hang open.”
App. Br. 11; see also id. at 13; Reply Br. 3 (“the door 20 would maintain an
open position at all times.”). This argument is unpersuasive because it fails
to account for the Examiner’s findings and reasoning that it would have been
obvious, in light of Lang and Izabel, to provide biasing members (e.g., a
spring as shown in Izabel) that urge the door to its closed position “to
effectually prevent infiltration of dirt or rain.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant also argues that Schuetz provides that the imaging device
and door are “effectively prevented from colliding” and thereby teaches
away from having the door urged open by the imaging device.8 App. Br.
11—12 (quoting Schuetz 2:2—10) (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 6—7.
A “reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general
preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy
Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
8 We note that claim 14 does not expressly recite that the door is urged open
by the imaging device.
5
Appeal 2017-001927
Application 14/286,012
Here, Schuetz explains that it was an object of the invention to overcome
disadvantages observed in prior art assemblies in which the camera unit was
mounted directly on the door. Schuetz 1:25—49. The modifications deemed
obvious by the Examiner do not involve the camera unit being mounted on
the door. Appellant does not persuade us that Schuetz’s disclosure of an
embodiment that does not involve contact between the imaging device and
door constitutes a teaching away from alternatives involving such contact
but still do not involve a camera unit which is mounted directly on the door.
Moreover, as the Examiner points out, Lang teaches an offsetting advantage
obtained by using the imaging device to urge the door open in that a
complex mechanism for pivoting the door may be avoided. Final Act. 5
(quoting Lang 3:64—65). Appellant does not persuade us that one of
ordinary skill would not have opted for the advantages taught by Lang
merely because it would involve contact between the imaging device and the
door. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense
of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify
the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the
benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”).
Appellant further argues that the references relied upon “fail to
disclose biasing members operably coupling the imaging device to the
housing, the biasing members urging the imaging device to the stowed
position.” App. Br. 13. However, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
6
Appeal 2017-001927
Application 14/286,012
in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, the Examiner presents
evidence of biasing members provided for urging a door covering for an
imaging device to its stored or closed position. Appellant does not identify
persuasive evidence to show that providing analogous biasing members
operative to perform the same function with regard to the imaging device
would have involved anything more than providing familiar elements to
yield predictable results—i.e., biasing the imaging device toward its stowed
and protected position.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 13—19.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II
With regard to Rejection II, Appellant relies on the same arguments
presented in connection with Rejection I. App. Br. 16. Accordingly, we
sustain Rejection II for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 13—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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).
AFFIRMED
7