Justin E. Sobecki et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

15127810 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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.
15/127,810 09/21/2016 Justin E. Sobecki DON09-P2484/425387 8949
153508 7590 08/02/2019
Honigman LLP/Magna
650 Trade Centre Way
Suite 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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):
asytsma@honigman.com
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JUSTIN E. SOBECKI, DAVID P. O’CONNELL,
and
KENNETH C. PETERSON
____________________

Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,8101
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–8, 10, and 17–28, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Magna Mirrors of
America Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
March 5, 2018; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 14, 2018;
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 14, 2018; Final Office Action
Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,810

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a vehicle function control system “for
providing illumination at the side or rear door of the vehicle, and for sensing
the presence of a person or person’s foot at an icon” projected at an exterior
vehicle surface or towards the ground, and “responsive to determination of
the user at or near . . . [the] projected icon, the control controls a function of
the vehicle associated with the . . . projected icon.” Spec. ¶ 4; Title;
Abstract.
Claims 1 and 22 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A vehicle function control system comprising:
a sensing and icon display module disposed at an exterior
portion of a vehicle equipped with said vehicle function control
system;
wherein said sensing and icon display module comprises
at least one illumination source operable to backlight an icon
for viewing at an exterior surface of the exterior portion of the
vehicle;
wherein the backlit icon is representative of a vehicle
function;
wherein said sensing and icon display module comprises
a sensing device operable to sense the presence of a user’s foot
below said sensing device;
a control responsive to an output of said sensing device;
and
wherein, responsive to determination of the user’s foot
below said sensing device, said control controls a function of
the vehicle associated with the backlit icon.

Appeal Br. 31–35 (Claims App’x).

(“Final Act.”) mailed September 21, 2017; and original Specification
(“Spec.”) filed September 21, 2016.
Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,810

3

Evidence Considered
Hanzel et al. (“Hanzel”) US 2008/0296926 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Lemoult et al.
(“Lemoult”)
US 2015/0084739 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
Iwai et al. (“Iwai”) US 2011/0157908 A1 June 30, 2011
Gehin et al. (“Gehin”) WO 2013/037806 A1 Mar. 21, 2013

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 17–24, and 26–28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hanzel and Lemoult. Final Act.
2–11.3
(2) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hanzel, Lemoult, and Iwai. Final Act. 11–12.
(3) Claims 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hanzel, Lemoult, and Gehin4. Final Act. 12–13.

ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Hanzel’s controller 32,
emitter 47A, and receiver 47B, shown in Figures 1, 4a, and 4b, teach a
sensing and icon display module of a vehicle function control system
comprising an illumination source (emitter 47A) operable to backlight an
icon (logo 21) for viewing at a surface (surface 19), where the backlit icon
(logo 21) represents a vehicle function, as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing

3 Although claim 25 is listed in the summary of this rejection (see Final Act.
2), claim 25 is actually rejected under Hanzel, Lemoult, and Gehin (see Final
Act. 12).
4 The Examiner cites to Gehin’s US equivalent (US 2014/0330486 A1;
published Nov. 6, 2014, to Gehin et al.) (“Gehin US”). See Final Act. 12.
Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,810

4

Hanzel ¶¶ 29, 34–36, 38, Figs. 1, 4a–4b). In addition to Hanzel, the
Examiner also finds Lemoult backlights an icon for viewing at an exterior
surface of an exterior portion of a vehicle, as claimed. Final Act. 4 (citing
Lemoult ¶¶ 50, 52–55, Fig. 1). Particularly, the Examiner interprets “LEDs
for elements 15–17 of Fig. 1 of Lemoult . . . as backlit icons because they
allow the user to view the icons from outside of the vehicle through the
vehicle window, and each icon represents an operation of the vehicle.” Ans.
3 (citing Lemoult ¶¶ 52–55).
Appellants argue, and we agree, that Hanzel and Lemoult, alone or in
combination, fail to teach or suggest a sensing and icon display module
comprising “at least one illumination source operable to backlight an icon
for viewing at an exterior surface of the exterior portion of the vehicle . . .
[and] the backlit icon is representative of a vehicle function” as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 10, 12–13; Reply Br. 2–3.
For example, Hanzel merely projects a light beam (20) onto the
ground (19) to form the shape of a logo (21). See Hanzel ¶¶ 29 (“a laser
projection diode or module [in emitter 47A] capable of generating and
projecting a concentrated light beam 20 . . . onto a stationary surface, such as
surface 19 of the ground on which vehicle 10 rests or an internal surface (not
shown) within vehicle 10”), 35 (“emitter 47A may be configured to project a
customizable logo 21 onto surface 19”), Fig. 4a. Hanzel’s Figure 4a is
reproduced below with additional markings for illustration.
Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,810

5

Hanzel’s Figure 4a is a perspective illustration of an emitter. Hanzel ¶ 16.
As shown in Hanzel’s Figure 4a, light beam (20) is projected onto the
ground (19) to form the shape of a logo (21). However, Hanzel does not
teach that (1) its illumination source (emitter 47A) backlights an icon as
claimed, or that (2) projected logo 21 is viewed “at an exterior surface of the
exterior portion of the vehicle” as claimed.
Lemoult does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Hanzel,
as Appellants explain, because Lemoult’s illumination sources (emitters E
and LEDs 15–17 in Figure 1) do not backlight (i.e., illuminate from behind)
an icon as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2. Rather,
Lemoult’s “LEDs [15, 16, and 17] are exposed, and are not and cannot be
illuminating the images [of a closed key, an opened key, and a timer] from
behind. . . . Lemoult merely discloses the LED of the corresponding image
Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,810

6

lighting up.” See Reply Br. 2; see also Lemoult ¶¶ 48, 52–55 (“Signaling
LEDs are arranged on the outer face [of the keypad assembly 1, the face
intended to be pressed under the windscreen, inside the car]” to indicate “if
the car is locked . . . the LED 15 corresponding to the image of a closed key
lights up,” “if the identification code is correct, the car opens, the LED 16
corresponding to the image of a opened key lights up,” and “if the
processing unit or the telematic box 11 is processing, the LED 17
corresponding to the image of a timer lights up”), Fig. 1. Thus, “LED
elements 15, 16, and 17 . . . do not backlight an icon for viewing at an
exterior surface of an exterior portion of a vehicle” as required by claim 1.
Reply Br. 2. Further, Lemoult’s emitters E are “placed next to numbers [1,
2, . . . 9, 0] inscribed on the keypad assembly” where “the numbers are
pressed against the windshield and ‘inscribed on the outer face [of keypad
assembly 1] which may be designed from plastic material.’” Appeal Br. 12;
Reply Br. 2 (citing Lemoult ¶¶ 48, 52); see also Lemoult ¶ 56, Figs. 1 and 3.
Lemoult’s Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,810

7

Lemoult’s Figure 1 illustrates keypad assembly (1) connected to a telematic
box for opening a car. Lemoult ¶ 40.

Thus, Lemoult’s keypad images (of numbers and of a closed key,
opened key, and timer) are not backlit. Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 12. Instead,
Lemoult’s keypad images and Lemoult’s illumination sources (emitters E
and LEDs 15–17) are all pressed against the windshield. Reply Br. 2;
Appeal Br. 12–13; see also Lemoult ¶¶ 42 (“key comprises one emitter and
one receiver pressed against the windscreen, without a gap between the
windscreen and the emitter/receiver”), 48 (“the outer face of the keypad
assembly . . . [is] intended to be pressed under the windscreen, inside the
car”), 52 (“[s]ignaling LEDs are arranged on the outer face [of the keypad
assembly]”), Fig. 1. Additionally, Lemoult’s keypad images and
illumination sources are not icons “backli[t] . . . for viewing at an exterior
Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,810

8

surface of the exterior portion of the vehicle” as recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 12–13.
In contrast to Lemoult, Appellants’ icons (e.g., item 313 in Figs. 28–
29) are backlit by illumination sources (312) integrated into or disposed
behind a vehicle part 316 (e.g., a vehicle’s bumper or rocker panel), “with an
outer wall or portion 316a of the housing 316 having translucent or
transparent regions that allow the illumination devices 312 to backlight
respective icons or masks at the outer wall or portion of the housing” such
that “the backlit icons (when the illumination sources are activated) are
viewable and discernible at the vehicle rocker panel to a person viewing the
vehicle rocker panel at a side region adjacent to the vehicle.” See Spec.
¶¶ 67–69, Figs. 28–29.
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Iwai
and Gehin make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Hanzel and Lemoult.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 22 reciting
similar limitations (“said sensing and icon display module comprises at least
one illumination source operable to backlight an icon for viewing at an
upper exterior surface of the portion of the vehicle,” “said illumination
source is activated to backlight the icon”), and claims 2–8, 10, 17–21, and
23–28 dependent therefrom. Appeal Br. 23–25. Because the above-
discussed issues are dispositive as to the obviousness rejections of all claims
on appeal, we do not reach additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments
as to the § 103 rejections of claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 20–22, 24, 25, and 28.

Appeal 2018-008365
Application 15/127,810

9

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–8, 10, and 17–28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–8,
10, and 17–28.

REVERSED