Ex Parte SIDDIQUI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2019

14819559 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/819,559 08/06/2015
28395 7590 02/27/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adil Nizam SIDDIQUI
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.
83551653 1020
EXAMINER
CATTUNGAL, ROWINA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADIL NIZAM SIDDIQUI and BRAD ALAN IGNACZAK 1
Appeal2018-006432
Application 14/819,559
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal of these
claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2018-006432
Application 14/819,559
STATEMENT OF CASE2
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. An information display system for a vehicle
compnsmg:
an interface supported on a side of the vehicle and
configured to display output from a camera; and
a controller configured to, in response to a display
anomaly, stop displaying the output and move the interface to a
predetermined position to increase a field of view associated
with the side of the vehicle and reflected by the interface.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 2007/0159317 A 1, published July
12, 2007) in view of Eder et al. (US 2011/0254957 Al, published Oct. 20,
2011) (hereinafter "Eder"). Final Act. 4--9.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nagata in view of Eder and Graf et al. (US 2017 /0078588 Al, published
Mar. 16, 2017) (hereinafter "Graf'). Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nagata in view of Eder and Shin et al. (US 2013/0236063
Al, published Sept. 12, 2013) (hereinafter "Shin"). Final Act. 10-11.
2 Our Decision will make reference to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.,"
filed June 30, 2017), Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Nov. 21,
2017), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 6, 2018), and
Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 5, 2018).
2
Appeal2018-006432
Application 14/819,559
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nagata in view of Eder and Spero (US 2003/0169213 Al, published Sept.
11, 2003). Final Act. 11.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nagata in view of Eder and Diekmann et al. (US
2010/0157585 Al, published June 24, 2010) (hereinafter "Diekmann").
Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's analysis and response regarding claims 1-18, which have been
argued by the Appellant. App. Br. 2-5; Reply Br. 2--4.
We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. Ans. 15-
20. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Nagata and Eder
and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to
various parts of the references for teaching the claimed limitations. Final
Act. 4--9.
Regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 12, Appellant argues that the
combination of Nagata and Eder does not teach "in response to an anomaly,
3
Appeal2018-006432
Application 14/819,559
the interface rotates to increase a driver's field-of-view, and to reflect the
side of the vehicle." App. Br. 3--4.
Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claims. For example, the Examiner correctly points out that "contrary to the
[A]ppellant's arguments the claims does not recite that in response to an
anomaly, the interface rotates to increase a driver's field-of-view, and to
reflect the side of the vehicle." Ans. 18 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends:
Examiner's final rejections fail to consider what the entirety of
the combined disclosure of Nagata in view of Eder suggests.
When taken as whole, the combined disclosure to Nagata in
view of Eder teaches away from Appellant's claims 1, 7 and 12.
App. Br. 2 (emphasis added).
Appellant also contends:
Neither Nagata, Eder or the combined disclosure to Nagata in
view of Eder disclose or suggest that the interface rotate to
increase a field-of-view of a side of the vehicle when an
anomaly is detected. Rather the combined disclosure suggests
that the interface rotate such that a field-of-view is decreased
because the interface rotates into the retracted position.
Rotating the interface into the retracted position decreases the
field-of-view associated with the interface, and explicitly
teaches away from rotating the interface to allow for a side of
the vehicle to be reflected.
App. Br. 4.
The Examiner responds:
Examiner clarifies that [the] claim recites "Move the interface
to a predetermined position to increase a field of view
associated with the side of the vehicle and reflected by the
interface". And Nagata Figs. 1, 2A-2B & Para [0026] - [0028]
4
Appeal2018-006432
Application 14/819,559
teaches the use position and retracted positon and in the display
apparatus 1 projects on the reflector 32 the image of the front
view of the driver in a driver's seat of the vehicle 100 as shown
in FIG. 2A and in FIG. 2B, a retracted position that does not
obstacle the front view of the driver (i.e., the reflection surface
of the mirror (the reflector 32) positioned in parallel with the
look direction). And Eder in Fig 5 & Para [0028] & Para [0034]
teaches the display device 20 seen by the driver 9 is mounted
into a vehicle 8 and is mounted to an A-pillar 21 of the motor
vehicle 8 that images of the side of the vehicle. And hence
combined teachings of Nagata and Eder do not teach away
because it does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the claimed invention relied upon on the rejection of the claims.
Ans. 16-17.
We agree with the Examiner. "A reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant."
Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
( citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Teaching an alternative or
equivalent method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed
method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433,438 (CCPA 1965). A reference
does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an
alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled
artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage investigation into
the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant also contends that the Examiner's "answer shows that the
combined disclosure to Nagata in view of Eder lacks a reasonable
expectation of success." Reply Br. 3--4 ( emphasis omitted).
5
Appeal2018-006432
Application 14/819,559
We disagree because the Examiner has found actual teachings in the
prior art and has provided a rationale for the combination (see Ans. 15-20).
We note that the above-noted teachings suggest that the combination
involves the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions, i.e., displaying information in a vehicle. The Supreme
Court has held that in analyzing the obviousness of combining elements, a
court need not find specific teachings, but rather may consider "the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art" and "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be "more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions," id. at 417, and the basis for an obviousness rejection must
include an "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness." Id. at 418 ( citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, the Examiner has provided a rationale for
the combination. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 17-19. Accordingly, we find
that the Examiner has provided sufficient motivation for modifying Nagata
with the teachings of Eder.
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the proper combinability
of the prior art references as suggested by the Examiner. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and
12, and dependent claims not argued separately.
6
Appeal2018-006432
Application 14/819,559
Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7