Ex Parte Ramos

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 13, 2015

11964214 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRANK RAMOS ____________ Appeal 2012-012655 Application 11/964,214 1 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–21. Claim 12 is canceled. App. Br., Appendix, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Honda Motor Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-012655 Application 11/964,214 2 REJECTIONS 2 Claims 1, 8, 15, and 18–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Cunnien (US 2005/0093684 A1, published May 5, 2005)(“Cunnien”) and Linn et al. (US 2005/0146607 A1, published July 7, 2005)(“Linn”). Ans. 5. Claims 2–6, 9–11, 13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Cunnien, Linn, and Imoto et al. (US 2005/0083405 A1, published Apr. 21, 2005)(“Imoto”). Ans. 8. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Cunnien, Linn, and Bauer et al. (US 7,111,968 B2, issued Sept. 26, 2006)(“Bauer”). Ans. 10. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Cunnien, Linn, and McMahon et al. (US 2010/0188508 A1, published July 29, 2010)(“McMahon”). Ans. 11. ANALYSIS The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to “methods and apparatuses regarding the manufacture of vehicles comprising rear-vision systems having an integrated rear license plate light.” Spec. 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to an integrated rear-vison system and rear light assembly, independent claim 8 to a vehicle and independent claim 15 to a method. Claim 1 recites: 2 Appellant only requests review of the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 5. Appeal 2012-012655 Application 11/964,214 3 1. An integrated rear-vision system and rear light assembly comprising: a rear-vision system comprising: (a) a camera assembly comprising at least a first lens assembly and an image capture device; (b) a controller portion; and, (c) a display device; a rear light assembly comprising: (a) a rear housing assembly comprising a generally rectangular frame that defines a license plate area, and first, second, third, and fourth sides that together define the generally rectangular frame of the rear housing assembly; (b) a cover assembly comprising a generally rectangular frame, first, second, third, and fourth sides that together define the generally rectangular frame of the cover assembly a camera aperture and a first light aperture; (c) the first side of the cover assembly cooperates with the first side of the rear housing assembly to define at least a first light cavity; (d) the second side of the cover assembly cooperates with the second side of the rear housing assembly to define a camera cavity; and, (e) a first light source is positioned within the first light cavity and emits light through the first light aperture toward the license plate area; and the camera assembly is positioned within the camera cavity, the camera assembly captures images of a rearview area though the camera aperture, and the images of the rearview area are transmitted to the display device. Claims 1, 8, and 15 Appellant argues that neither Cunnien nor Linn teaches or suggests separate light and camera cavities as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 6. Cunnien discloses an integrated rear-vision system and rear light assembly in a rectangular license plate frame. Cunnien Abstract and Appeal 2012-012655 Application 11/964,214 4 Figs. 1–5. Cunnien appears to show a single cavity defined by the top sides of the rear housing assembly and the cover assembly. Cunnien Fig. 4. With regard to this cavity, Cunnien says: The cover 34 has an upper segment 25 that cooperates with upper segment 24 of the base frame 20 to define an interior cavity 42. The interior cavity can extend along the entire width of the license plate holder 10 or merely portions thereof sufficient to house the camera 44 and lights 54, 56. Cunnien ¶ 15. The last sentence of the above quoted passage from Cunnien suggests that the light and the camera cavity may be in different cavities. In addition, Linn discloses cameras mounted in many different locations on a vehicle including along one or more sides of the license plate frame. Linn Fig. 5c. We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s findings. Appellant also attacks the Examiner’s combination of Cunnien and Linn. App. Br. 8–10. These references are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and the alleged distinction from the prior art – separate light and camera cavities – appears to us to be a combination of familiar elements that yields no more than predictable results. KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”) Appellant fails to present any persuasive argument as to why the claimed combination is non-obvious or how the claimed combination yields any unpredictable result. We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15. Appeal 2012-012655 Application 11/964,214 5 Claims 2–7, 9–11, 13, 14, and 16–21 No separate arguments are offered by Appellant relating to any of the dependent claims. App. Br. 10 (“The remaining dependent claims are also allowable by dependency.”) We affirm the rejection of dependent claims 2– 7, 9–11, 13, 14, and 16–21 for the reasons stated above with regard to independent claims 1, 8, and 15. CONCLUSION The rejection of all the pending claims 1–11 and 13–21 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)(iv). AFFIRMED tj