Ex Parte Krispin

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 2019

15113831 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 15/113,831 24505 7590 Daniel J. Swirsky 11 Reuven Street FILING DATE 07/24/2016 01/31/2019 Beit Shemesh, 9954419 ISRAEL FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yeshaya Krispin 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. 2640-US 1075 EXAMINER TRAN, THANG DUC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2019 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 YESHA YA KRISPIN Appeal 2018-003 681 Application 15/113,831 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 18-3 7. See Br. 1, 9. 2 Claims 1-17 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Roadwarez Inc. Br. 2. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act."), mailed July 3, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("Br."), filed November 3, 2017; and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed November 24, 2017. Appeal 2018-003 681 Application 15/113,831 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention is a signaling system designed to be worn by users of open vehicles. Spec. 1 :2--4. One embodiment is a vest with a display on the back. Id. at 1 :6-8. The vest uses GPS data and a motion sensor's output to automatically control a tum signal. See, e.g., id. at 8: 12- 18. For example, indicators display a tum signal when the motion sensor detects a vehicle tum and the GPS data indicates a tum should be present at that location (e.g., following a road's topography). Id. at 8:8-10. According to the Specification, the invention displays a signal faster and more accurately than using either motion-sensor output or GPS data alone. Id. at 8:12-18. Claims 18 and 30 are independent and reproduced below: 18. A signaling system, comprising a vest having a rear- facing display and a controller, the vest being configured to communicate with the controller for operating the display, wherein the controller is configured to operate the display based at least on data from a GPS module and one or more motion sensors. 30. A method of displaying a tum signal, the method compnsmg: â€¢ providing a signaling system having a vest with a rear-facing display a controller, and one or more motion sensors; â€¢ acquiring, by said controller, GPS data from a GPS module; â€¢ determining, based on said GPS data and outputs of said motion sensors, that a tum signal should be displayed; and â€¢ operating said display to indicate an appropriate tum signal. 2 Appeal 2018-003 681 Application 15/113,831 THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Fuentes Sambongi Boatright et al. Langlois et al. US 2003/0213045 Al US 2012/0053889 Al US 2012/0310465 Al US 2014/0280580 Al THE REJECTIONS Nov. 20, 2003 Mar. 1, 2012 Dec. 6, 2012 Sept. 18, 2014 Claims 18, 19, 24, 27, 30, 31, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102( a)( 1) as anticipated by Fuentes. Final Act. 2---6. Claims 20 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Fuentes and Sambongi. Final Act. 7-8. Claims 21-23, 25, 26, and 33-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Fuentes and Langlois. Final Act. 8-11. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Fuentes, Langlois, and Boatright. Final Act. 11-12. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 18, 19, AND 24 The Examiner's Findings In rejecting claim 18 as anticipated by Fuentes, the Examiner finds that Fuentes discloses a garment with a rear display controlled by sensors, including a GPS module and an inertial sensor. Final Act. 3 ( citing Fuentes ,r,r 25, 37, 42, 39). According to the Examiner, Fuentes's circuit 40a, 40b, and 40c operates the display. Id. ( citing Fuentes Fig. 1 ). Appellant's Contentions First, Appellant argues that Fuentes teaches a variety of sensors but does not teach a motion sensor. Br. 6. Second, Appellant argues that 3 Appeal 2018-003 681 Application 15/113,831 Fuentes's display is not operated automatically by a controller or a controller that receives data directly from a GPS module and motion sensor. Id. at 7. According to Appellant, Fuentes uses GPS data to make the user aware of their location or for networking a team of users, not to select display signals. Id. Issue UnderÂ§ 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Fuentes discloses "wherein the controller is configured to operate the display based at least on data from a GPS module and one or more motion sensors," in the rejection of claim 18? Analysis We agree with the Examiner that Fuentes discloses a motion sensor. Ans. 3. In particular, Fuentes discloses an inertial sensor. Fuentes ,r 39, quoted in Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Fuentes uses the inertial sensor to sense movement. Ans. 3. According to Fuentes, the inertial sensor enhances the wearer's safety and visibility, among other things. Fuentes ,r 39. The inertial sensor is contained in flexible illuminated display pad 23. Id. ,r 39. Pad 23 is secured to garment 10, which can be a vest. Id. ,r 37. Garment 10 can be worn by a motorcycle rider. Id. In this use, garment 10 can "indicate the wearer's intentions" visually. Id. ,r 64. For example, the garment "lights up when a wearer makes a specific move." Id. ,r 32. To create an illuminated pattern, such as a "left- turn indicator," circuitry 40a, 40b, and 40c drive garment lO's display. Id. ,r,r 37-38. On this record, the weight of the evidence favors the Examiner's finding that Fuentes discloses a motion sensor (i.e., the inertial 4 Appeal 2018-003 681 Application 15/113,831 sensor) and a controller (i.e., circuitry 40a, 40b, and 40c) that operates a display based on the motion-sensor data. Final Act. 3. We note that claim 18 recites that the operation is "based at least on data from a GPS module and one or more motion sensors" but does not require using both GPS and motion-sensor data simultaneously and together. Although Appellant discloses an embodiment that uses both (see, e.g., Spec. 8: 12-18), the Specification contemplates other embodiments falling within the scope of the claims (see, e.g., Spec. 14:12-25). Thus, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of claim 18 covers a vest like Fuentes's, which uses different types of data for visible signaling. See, e.g., Fuentes ,r 39 (disclosing that the vest receives GPS data and contains inertial sensors). Given this understanding of the claim, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Fuentes discloses a controller configured to operate the display based on GPS data and a motion sensor. Final Act. 3. Specifically, flexible illuminated display pad 23 can receive GPS positioning signals. Fuentes ,r 39. According to Fuentes, the GPS data is used for "communications, control, signaling and networking purposes." Id. ( emphasis added). That is, Fuentes uses location data for more than making the user aware of location for networking a team, as Appellant argues. Br. 6-7. For example, Fuentes discloses that the invention can perform "location based marketing," where "highly visible signaling and interaction are coupled with corporate logos or messages." Fuentes ,r 70 (emphasis added). And as discussed above, circuitry 40a, 40b, and 40c create the signals by driving garment lO's display. Id. ,r,r 37-38. Thus, the weight of the evidence favors the Examiner's finding that Fuentes's controller (i.e., circuitry 40a, 40b, and 5 Appeal 2018-003 681 Application 15/113,831 40c) is configured to operate the display based on data from a GPS module. Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 18 and dependent claims 19 and 24, which are not separately argued. Br. 6-7. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 27, 30, 31, AND 37 Claim 30 recites, in part, "determining, based on said GPS data and outputs of said motion sensors, that a tum signal should be displayed." Claim 27 recites a similar limitation. In rejecting claims 27 and 30 as anticipated by Fuentes, the Examiner finds that Fuentes determines that a tum signal should be displayed based on GPS data and the motion sensor's outputs. Final Act. 5 ( citing Fuentes ,r 32). Appellant argues that the relied-upon embodiment displays data in response to user input, not GPS data. Br. 8. Fuentes activates tum signals in response to "a specific move." Fuentes ,r 32. Although the GPS data may activate the display in other ways, the Examiner has not shown that Fuentes's tum signals are activated by GPS data. Final Act. 5 (citing Fuentes ,r 32). Here, the Examiner has not explained why Fuentes would need both GPS in addition to motion-sensor data to sense Fuentes's "specific move." Ans. 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 27 and 30. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 31 and 37, which depend from claim 30. 6 Appeal 2018-003 681 Application 15/113,831 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 depend from claim 18. The Examiner rejects claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 under Fuentes and various combinations of Sambongi, Langlois, and Boatright. Final Act. 7-12. In arguing for the patentability of claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29, Appellant refers to the arguments presented for independent claim 18. Br. 8-9. Notably, Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's findings regarding Boatwright's teachings concerning the tum-signal limitations. See Final Act. 12; Br. 9. Thus, for the reasons discussed in connection with claim 18, we also sustain the rejections of claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29. Claims 32-36 depend from claim 30. The Examiner rejects claims 32-36 as being obvious over combinations of Fuentes with Samongi and Langlois. Final Act. 6-11. Because the Examiner did not rely on the additional references to teach the limitation missing from Fuentes, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 32-36 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 30. See App. Br. 8-9. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 18, 19, and 24, and the obviousness rejections of claim 20 over Fuentes and Sambongi, of claims 21-23, 25, and 26 over Fuentes and Langlois, and of claims 28 and 29 over Fuentes, Langlois, and Boatright. We do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejections of claims 27, 30, 31, and 37, and the obviousness rejections of claim 32 over Fuentes and Sambongi, and of claims 33-36 over Fuentes and Langlois. 7 Appeal 2018-003 681 Application 15/113,831 DECISION We affirm-in-part the Examiner's decision to reject claims 18-37. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8