Ex Parte Barker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 7, 2017

13852097 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 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. 13/852,097 03/28/2013 Lisa Barker H0037650 5362 108134 7590 08/09/2017 HONFYWFT T /ADHTTON EXAMINER 115 Tabor Road WILLIAMS, KELLY D P.O. Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/09/2017 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): patentservices-us @ honey well, com docket @ ahpapatent. com Katharine.Lawther@Honeywell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LISA BARKER, LEONARD KNIGHT, and JAMES CHAMBERLIN Appeal 2016-004924 Application 13/852,0971 Technology Center 3600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOVAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Hand Held Products, Inc., doing business as Honeywell Scanning and Mobility, the assignee of record, which is a subsidiary of Honeywell Inc. and which is one of the Applicants. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-004924 Application 13/852,097 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosed “invention relates generally to computer systems, and, more specifically, to . . . capturing and preserving vehicle event data using a vehicle-mount computer.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: Claim 1. A system for capturing and preserving vehicle event data comprising: a barcode scanner having an imaging device for capturing images; an event sensor for detecting a vehicle event; and a vehicle-mount computer comprising a central processing unit and memory; wherein said central processing unit is configured for, in response to the detection of a vehicle event by the event sensor, storing on said memory a designated duration of images captured by said imaging device before the detected vehicle event and a designated duration of images captured by said imaging device after the detected vehicle event. The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims Wulff US 2007/0027585 Al Feb. 1,2007 Breed US 2007/0075919 Al Apr. 5, 2007 Boice US 2008/0079554 Al Apr. 3, 2008 Miller et al. US 2011/0063099 Al Mar. 17,2011 (hereinafter “Miller”) Jacobus et al. US 2014/0277691 Al Sept. 18, 2014 (hereinafter “Jacobus”) 2 Appeal 2016-004924 Application 13/852,097 Claims 1—3, 10—12, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over Miller and Jacobus. See Final Act. 2— 6. Claims 4—6, 9, 13, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Jacobus, and Wulff. See Id. at 7—10. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Jacobus, Wulff, and Boice. See id. at 10-12. Claims 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Jacobus, and Breed. See Final Act. 12—13. Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Br.” filed Sept. 15, 2015) and the Specification (“Spec.” filed Mar. 28, 2013) for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed Jan. 15, 2015) and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed Feb. 2, 2016) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014). ISSUE Appellants argue independent claims 1,10, and 16 together, and do not separately argue dependent claims 2—9, 11—15, and 17—20 with particularity. See generally Br. 12—15. Accordingly, we discuss the appeal 2 All prior art rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Final Act 2. 3 Appeal 2016-004924 Application 13/852,097 by referring to claim 1. The issue presented by Appellants’ arguments is whether the Examiner errs in finding and concluding the combination of Miller and Jacobus teaches or suggests “a barcode scanner having an imaging device for capturing images; . . . wherein ... in response to the detection of a vehicle event by [an] event sensor, storing on [a] memory . . . images captured by said imaging device,” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings (Final Act. 2—3) and explanations (Ans. 2—6) regarding claim 1 in light of Appellants’ arguments and contentions (Br. 10—15). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and explanations, and we adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis. Appellants contend as follows: As the Examiner has admitted, Miller does not teach a barcode scanner. Jacobus teaches a barcode scanner. However, the barcode scanner of Jacobus is merely a barcode scanner and does not teach or suggest anything about it possibly being used for capturing vehicle event images before and after an event. Br. 14. We disagree. As explained by the Examiner, Jacobus teaches using vehicle- mounted cameras (“imaging device[s] for capturing images”) to read bar codes (Jacobus 191). See Ans. 4. Thus, Jacobus teaches “a barcode scanner having an imaging device for capturing images,” as recited in claim 1. Miller teaches using a vehicle-mounted imaging device to record images for a period of time before and after a detected event. See Miller 147. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a 4 Appeal 2016-004924 Application 13/852,097 person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize Jacobus’s barcode scanner having an imaging device for capturing images to capture images before and after a detected event as taught by Miller. See Final Act. 3. Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination of Miller and Jacobus is an impermissible hindsight reconstruction (Br. 14), explaining “the only motivation to use Jacobus’ barcode scanner to scan barcodes and capture vehicle event images is the claims, meaning the Examiner has improperly gleaned such information from the Appellant's application, not from the prior art. Combining Miller and Jacobus therefore employs ex post reasoning” (Br. 15). We disagree. The combination of Miller and Jacobus amounts to no more than the substitution of one known imaging device, Jacobus’s barcode scanner having an imaging device, for another, Miller’s known imaging device, with predictable results. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. On this record, we do not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 10 and 16, which were argued together with claim 1; and (3) claims 2—9, 11—15, and 17—20, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1,10, and 16, and were not separately argued with particularity. 5 Appeal 2016-004924 Application 13/852,097 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED 6