Ex Parte Tannas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2016

12773687 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121773,687 05/04/2010 Lawrence E. Tannas JR.
23410 7590 10/18/2016
Vista IP Law Group LLP
100 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 900
IRVINE, CA 92618
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.
TNS-013.1 6497
EXAMINER
TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 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 LAWRENCE E. TANNAS, JR.
Appeal 2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
Technology Center 2800
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 11-19, and 21-27,
which are all of the claims pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
WeAFFIRM. 1
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed November 9, 2015
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed June 6, 2016 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed April 8, 2016 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed April 8,
2015 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed May 4, 2010 ("Spec.").
Appeal2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "apparatus and methods for mounting
a display to a panel, such as a control panel within a cockpit of an aircraft,
flight simulator, or work station." Spec. 1: 11-13; Abstract.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellant's invention, as reproduced with a disputed limitation emphasized
below:
1. A method for mounting a flat panel display to a control
panel of a cockpit of an aircraft, flight simulator, or work station,
or a dashboard of a vehicle, the control panel including a plurality
of openings for receiving respective display instruments, the
method comprising:
mounting the display to a substantially flat outer surface
of the control panel over a panel opening such [that] the display
does not extend into the panel opening;
directing one or more wires coupled to the display through
the panel opening;
mounting electronics that drive the display to a back
surface of the control panel behind the control panel separately
from mounting the display to the outer surface; and
coupling the one or more wires to the electronics.
App. Br. 22 (Claims App.).
Examiner's Rejection and References
(1) Claims 1-7 and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Beseth et al., (US 7,473,931 Bl; issued Jan. 6,
2009; "Beseth") and Szumita et al., (US 2002/0125401 Al, published Sept.
12, 2002; "Szumita"). Final Act. 6-13.
2
Appeal2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
(2) Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beseth, Szumita, and Tannas (US 6,204,906 B 1; issued
Mar. 20, 2001). Final Act. 13.
(3) Claims 11-16 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Beseth, Szumita, 2 and Goode et al., (US
5,896,098; issued Apr. 20, 1999; "Goode"). Final Act. 14--16.
(4) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beseth, Goode, James C. Byrd et al., Interchangeable
LCDs reduce cost and risk, Cockpit Displays VIII: Displays for Defense
Applications (Darrel G. Harper, Ed.), Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 4362, pp.
144--151, © 2001 SPIE ("Byrd"). Final Act. 17.
(5) Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beseth, Goode, and Szumita. Final Act. 17-18.
(6) Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beseth, Goode, and Stephen et al., (US 5,351,176; issued
Sept. 27, 1994). Final Act. 18.
ISSUE
Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation: "mounting the display to a substantially
flat outer surface of the control panel over a panel opening such [that] the
2 In the Final Action, Szumita was not cited to support the obviousness
rejection of claims 11-16 and 21. Final Act. 15. However, Appellant has
treated the obviousness rejection as including Szumita. App. Br. 6. Based
on Appellant's arguments, we will treat the obviousness rejection as
including Szumita.
3
Appeal2016-006284
Application I2/773,687
display does not extend into the panel opening," as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claims I I and 21. App. Br. 7-I2; Reply Br. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-7 and 23-27 based on
Beseth and Szumita
With respect to independent claim I, the Examiner finds Beseth
discloses a method for mounting a flat panel display to a control panel of a
cockpit of an aircraft, a work station, or a dashboard of a vehicle, as shown
in Figures I-3, including:
mounting the display (140) to a substantially flat outer
surface (left vertical surface in Fig. IE) of the control panel (160)
over a panel opening (col. 7, lines 2--4) such [that] the display
does not extend into the panel opening ..
directing one or more wires (170) through the panel
openmg;
mounting electronics (electronic modules (130) in Fig. lB)
that drive the display to a back surface (right surface in Fig. IE)
of the control panel (160) behind the control panel (160) ("the
mounting frame I 00 with unit frames I 20 located behind the
instrument panel I60", col. 5, lines 52-54) separately from
mounting the display to the outer surface ... and
coupling the one or more wires (170) to the electronics
(130) (via electronic connectors (128) (Fig. IE).
Final Act. 7 (citing Beseth 2:36--4I, 3:I6-I8, 5:I5-37, 5:52-54, 6:66-7:4,
Figs. I-3).
4
Appeal2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
Figure IE of Beseth is reproduced below:
,...-- ·--,.
144--Cl
L-- °=-· ---~-----~--------,.
110
lDO
Figure IE of Beseth shows flat panel display 140 mounted onto control
panel 160 and mounting frame 100
According to Beseth, the display unit 140 includes a "flat panel, color
liquid crystal (LCD) screen." Beseth 5: 10--11. In addition, "the display unit
is capable of nesting partially inside the mounting frame 100, however in
alternate procedures the display unit 140 may be positioned in other
configurations such as flush with the [control] panel 160." Beseth 6:66--7:3.
The Examiner acknowledges Beseth does not disclose what the
Examiner characterizes as "a well-known fact that displays commonly are
made with one or more wires coupled to them" as disclosed by Szumita in
order to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 8 (citing Szumita ,-r 34,
Figs. la-le; Beseth 1:43--46, 2:34--38, 5:44--47, 7:20--21). The Examiner
also relies on Szumita for supplementing Beseth's disclosure of various
configurations of a display unit as a "design choice" including "a display
(12) with a rectangular cross-section ... mounted to a substantially flat
5
Appeal2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
outer surface of a panel (30) over a panel opening (32) such that the display
(12) does not extend into the panel opening (32)." Ans. 5---6 (citing
Szmnita's Figs. la and 9) (emphasis in original).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Szumita. Nor does Appellant challenge the Examiner's rationale for
combining Beseth and Szumita. Instead, Appellant argues Beseth does not
teach the disputed limitation: "mounting the display to a substantially flat
outer surface of the control panel over a panel opening such [that] the
display does not extend into the panel opening," as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 6-17. According to Appellant, the display unit 140, shown in Figure IE
of Beseth, "is inserted through the opening in the instrument panel 160" and
"clearly extends into the opening in the instrument panel 160." Id. 9--11. As
such, Appellant argues "this configuration of Beseth unequivocally does
NOT teach Appellant's claimed invention because the display unit 140
extends into the panel opening." Id. at 11. In addition, Appellant disputes
the meaning of the term "flush" described in the context of Beseth's display
unit 140 as being positioned relative to the control panel 160. Id. 13-17.
According to Appellant,
Beseth first describes that the display unit is "nesting partially
inside the mounting frame" and then states that in an alternative
configuration, the display unit may be flush with the instrument
panel. Thus, Beseth is explaining that the back surface of the
display unit 140 is flush with the inside surface of the instrument
panel 160 such that the display unit 140 does not nest within the
mounting frame 100. Accordingly, this construction is consistent
with the proper definition of the term "flush" and also reflects an
"alternative" to being partially nested, as implied by Beseth's
statement.
Id. at 15 (emphasis added).
6
Appeal2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
We disagree. Contrary to Appellant's arguments, whether the display
unit is "nesting partially inside the mounting frame" or "may be flush with
the instrument panel" depends on its configuration, as disclosed by Beseth
and reinforced by Szumita. Ans. 5---6 (citing Beseth 6:66-7:3; Szumita's
Fig. la and 9). For example, if the display unit 140 is provided with a
protruding rear part, as shown in Beseth's Figure IE, that display unit 140 is
"nesting partially inside the mounting frame 140." However, if the display
unit is flat and without any protrusion, as shown, for example, in Szumita's
Figures la and 9, that display unit may be flush with the control panel, as
suggested by Beseth. See Beseth 6:66-7:3. As correctly recognized by the
Examiner, all these different configurations and cross-sectional shapes of the
display unit are well known to those skilled in the art and provide a design
choice to those skilled in the art to position a display unit relative to a
mounting frame.
An improvement in the art is obvious if "it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Moreover, the obviousness analysis "need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court [or the PTO] can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The knowledge to be taken into account includes
knowledge generally available to a person having ordinary skill in the art,
and facts admittedly well known in the art. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[A] prior art reference must be 'considered together
with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art."'); In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of
7
Appeal2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
the artisan, rather than the lack thereof); and In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566,
570-71(CCPA1975) (The admittedly known prior art disclosed in an
appellant's specification may be used in determining the patentability of a
claimed invention.).
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not demonstrated
Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7 and 23-27.
In its reply, Appellant argues, for the first time, that Szumita is not
analogous prior art and, as such, cannot be relied upon by the Examiner
because: (1) Szumita is not from the same field of endeavor and (2) Szumita
is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Appellant. Reply Br. 3-
5. According to Appellant, Szumita is not analogous prior art because
"Szumita is directed to mounting a display to an elevator panel or other wall
panel," and "has nothing to do with mounting a display to a control panel
within a cockpit of an aircraft, flight similar, or workstation." Id. at 3--4.
However, these arguments are deemed waived. Appellant has not explained
why, nor is it apparent that, these arguments were necessitated by a new
point in the Examiner Answer or any other circumstance constituting "good
cause" for its belated presentation. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1473-74 (BPAI 2010) ("informative") ("absent a showing of good cause, the
Board is not required to address argument in Reply Brief that could have
been presented in the principal Appeal Brief'). Even if these arguments
were to be considered, we are not persuaded that Szumita is not analogous
prior art because both Beseth and Szumita teach mounting a display unit
relative to a frame.
8
Appeal2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 11-16 and 21 based on
Beseth, Szumita, and Goode
With respect to claims 11 and 21, Appellant argues Goode does not
teach or suggest (1) a frame that does not extend into the panel opening, (2)
mounting the frame to the outer surface of the control panel over the panel
opening, and thereafter (3) securing the bezel and display to the frame. App.
Br. 18-20. In addition, Appellant acknowledges Goode's Figure 1 shows
the display unit 20 including a bezel 24, a mounting flange 26, an adapter
plate 28, and a chassis 30. Id. at 18 (citing Goode 2:62-64). However,
Appellant argues "it is not inherent that the display, or the mounting flange
26, or the adapter plate 28 do not extend into the panel opening" and "it
would not be obvious to ... mount the display unit 140 such that the display
unit 140 does not extend into the opening in the instrument panel 160." Id.
at 19-20.
We disagree. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The test of
obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. at 425. Contrary to
Appellant's arguments, the combined teachings of Beseth, Szumita, and
Goode would have suggested to those skilled in the art that the arrangement
of a frame and a display is such that (1) "the frame does not extend in to the
panel opening" and (2) "the display does not extend into the panel opening."
Ans. 8-9.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not demonstrated
Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
9
Appeal2016-006284
Application 12/773,687
of independent claims 11 and 21 and their respective dependent claims 9,
12-19, and 22, which Appellant does not argue separately.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, 9,
11-19, and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10