Ex Parte SIDDIQUI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 2019

14819559 (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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7