NAVIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 13, 2021

2020003015 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2021)

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.
14/689,527 04/17/2015 Michael James Mouser 67289-020PUS1 4465
26096 7590 09/13/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
ABAZA, AYMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2419
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2021 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MICHAEL JAMES MOUSER and
DONALD JAMES FINNEY, JR.1
________________

Appeal 2020-003015
Application 14/689,527
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–21, all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 4–
6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies The Hertz Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) at 1, filed December 27, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003015
Application 14/689,527

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A camera assembly includes a housing. A camera is
mounted to the housing. A cover is disposed over the camera.
The cover has a variable opacity. When the camera is being used,
such as for authentication, the cover is substantially transparent.
When the camera is not being used, the cover is substantially
opaque, to reassure the user’s sense of privacy.
Spec. Abstr.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the appealed
claims:
1. A camera assembly comprising: a housing;
a camera mounted to the housing, wherein the camera is
part of an authentication system installed in a vehicle, wherein
the authentication system selectively permits operation of the
vehicle based upon an image from the camera;
a display mounted to the housing, the display and the
camera both facing in a same direction relative to the housing;
and
a cover disposed over the camera, the cover having a
variable opacity.

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ricci (US 2014/0309864 A1;
published Oct. 16, 2014) and Ramrattan (US 2011/0122554 A1; published
May 26, 2011). Final Action (“Final Act.”) at 3–12, mailed May 28, 2019.

Appeal 2020-003015
Application 14/689,527

3
DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Ricci discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1 with the exception that Ricci does not teach a camera
cover that has a variable opacity. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that
Ramrattan teaches a mobile phone component cover 412 that has a variable
opacity. Id. at 4 (citing Ramrattan ¶ 57). The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply Ramrattan’s
teachings to Ricci’s disclosure in order to provide an electronic camera with
a smooth and uniform appearance. Id. at 5 (citing Ricci ¶¶ 2–3).
Appellant acknowledges that Ricci discloses a vehicle control system
that authenticates users based on an image sensor. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant
also acknowledges that Ricci’s device 212 or user interface 248 may be a
smart phone having a display. Id. But Appellant contends that Ricci does
not disclose the device’s appearance. Id. at 4, 6. Appellant, therefore,
argues, “the Examiner cannot support the [determination] that the variable
opacity cover would give the device a ‘smooth and uniform appearance.’”
Id. at 6.
Appellant further argues, “[i]n Ramrattan, the back of the phone
housing was specifically described as matching the variable opacity cover
when opaque.” Id. Appellant argues that in contrast,
if the Ricci device has a display facing the driver as the Examiner
states (as recited in claim 1), then almost all of the visible surface
of the device already does not match the housing, so adding a
variable opacity cover would not provide a “smooth and uniform
appearance” to the driver. The display surface would not match
the opaque cover.
Id.

Appeal 2020-003015
Application 14/689,527

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. As acknowledged by
Appellant, Ricci discloses device 212 or user interface 248, which receives
the identification information, may be a mobile telephone or computer that is
temporarily connected to or associated with the vehicle. Appeal Br. 4; see
also Ricci ¶¶ 27, 28.
Furthermore, Ramrattan discloses that the covers of varying opacity
may be provided over a camera that is disposed on the front side of the
mobile device, as well as over a camera that is disposed on the device’s rear
side. In particular, Ramrattan discloses,
although camera 136 and flash 138 have been illustrated as being
on the same side of the housing of a mobile device 100, such
components 450, 450′ may be located in different locations in the
housing. Specifically, additional or alternate components may
be placed on other locations of the housing, such as on the front
side of a mobile device 100.
Ramrattan ¶ 83.
By stating that the camera and flash can be located in different
locations other than being on the same side of the housing, Ramrattan
teaches that the camera or the flash, or both, may be located on the front of
the camera.

CONCLUSIONS
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of error in
the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm
the obviousness rejection of that claim and also of claims 2 and 4–21, which
Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 4–6; see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground
Appeal 2020-003015
Application 14/689,527

5
of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may
select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal
as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the
basis of the selected claim alone.”).

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–21 103 Ricci, Ramrattan 1, 2, 4–21