Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2017

13941610 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 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.
13/941,610 07/15/2013 Louis J. Schmidt 19001.057 3003
46668 7590 08/09/2017
FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C.
20916 MACK AVENUE, SUITE 2
GROSSE POINTE WOODS, MI 48236
EXAMINER
PICHLER, MARIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2017 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 LOUIS J. SCHMIDT, MICHAEL R. SCHMIDT, and
ROBERT P. SCHMIDT
Appeal 2016-007446
Application 13/941,610
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—11 and 14—20, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a glare reduction hood for
a touchscreen display and a method of reducing glare on a touchscreen
display.
Appeal 2016-007446
Application 13/941,610
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A glare reduction hood for a touchscreen display
comprising:
an elongated closure structure having an open mounting
end and an opposite, open viewing end, and said closure structure
having a longitudinal direction extending from said mounting
end to said viewing end;
said mounting end including an attacher that attaches and
secures the hood to peripheral edges of a frame of said
touchscreen display such that said mounting end is disposed
around the frame of the touchscreen display and the hood
projects outwardly from the edges and the front of the
touchscreen display, the frame surrounding the touchscreen
display;
said elongated closure structure including a pierceable
panel disposed between said mounting and viewing ends and
having an openable and predisposably closed access that is
opened when pierced by a piercing object and automatically
returns to a closed disposition when the piercing object is
removed, said pierceable panel allowing direct access to said
touchscreen display such that access to said touchscreen display
by said piercing object is provided in an unobstructed manner;
said openable and predisposably closed access including a
transverse opening in said pierceable panel, said transverse
opening extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal
direction of the closure structure, and a strip of elastic band,
material attached to said pierceable panel along each opposing
edge of said opening, said strips of elastic band material
overlapping each other;
wherein said closure structure shields the touchscreen
display, said access is pierceable by the piercing object to move
said access from a rest position to a conforming, sealing
disposition when the piercing object is inserted between said
strips of elastic band material such that said elastic band material
conforms to and intimately fits around the piercing object to seal
said access around the piercing object, and the touchscreen
display is viewable through said viewing end and contactable by
2
Appeal 2016-007446
Application 13/941,610
the piercing object via said access while said access continuously
shields the touchscreen display from glare.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Dion et al. (“Dion”) US 2002/0089754 A1 July 11, 2002
Stack US 2014/0046193 Al Feb. 13, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1—11 and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stack in view of Dion.
ANALYSIS
We reverse the stated rejection substantially for reasons as argued by
Appellants (App. Br. 20-38).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record in light of the
arguments advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we concur with
Appellants that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the subject matter recited in any of the claims on
appeal (see independent claims 1,11, and 18) within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants’ claimed subject matter requires, inter alia, a glare
reduction hood 10 for a touchscreen display 32 comprising an elongate
closure structure 12 extending from an open viewing end 26 to an opposite
open mounting end 22, wherein the hood is attached and secured to a
3
Appeal 2016-007446
Application 13/941,610
peripheral edge of a frame surrounding the touchscreen display via a
mounting end attacher 30 and the mounting end is disposed around the
frame such that the hood projects outwardly from the front of the touch
screen display and the peripheral edges of the frame, and wherein an
openable and predisposably closed traverse access opening 42 is provided in
a panel of the closure structure with overlapping strips of elastic band
material at opposing edges of the opening, the opening at a suitable location
for touching the screen while shielding the touchscreen from glare (see
claims 1, 11, and 18; Figs. 1—5).
For example and as explained by Appellants at pages 20 through 25 of
the Appeal Brief, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Stack’s disclosure
of its desktop opto-cognitive device 10 including an enclosure 12 having a
clam-shell top (140, Fig. 9) and a bottom base (130, Fig. 9), an internally
housed screen 36 of a computing device, and having slits 20 on the edges of
the base for passage of cables therethrough, taken together with Dion’s
disclosure of an entry opening 34 for insertion of an LCD screen 38 through
the opening into a glare shield attachment 10, would have prompted or led
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stack’s device and its slits 20 based
on the disparate screen insertion opening 34 disclosed by Dion, much less in
a manner so as to provide a pierceable panel with an openable and
predisposably closed traverse access opening extending perpendicularly to a
longitudinal direction of the enclosure 12 of Stack, the access opening
constructed and arranged so as to furnish access to a touchscreen and having
strips of elastic band material attached to edges of the access opening
overlapping each other, wherein the enclosure of Stack is constructed such
that it has an open touchscreen mounting end including an attacher for
4
Appeal 2016-007446
Application 13/941,610
securing the enclosure to peripheral edges of a frame of the touchscreen at
the open mounting end part of Stack’s enclosure, as required by Appellants’
independent claims (Final Act. 7; Stack, e.g., H 36, 37, 63, 65, and 104;
Figs 1, 2, 9).
The Examiner has not reasonably articulated why the necessary
modifications to Stack to arrive at subject matter corresponding to that
claimed is merely a matter of design choice or change in shape (Final Act.
7—8, 12—13, and 17). In this regard, “rejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness,” being asserted. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). After all, rejections based on § 103(a) must rest
on a factual basis with these facts being properly set forth and interpreted
without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
the appealed claims.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
5