Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 2012

11308248 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GREGORY SMITH, NICHOLAS ZORKA, KWAKU PRAKAH- ASANTE, SAMUEL E. EBENSTEIN, PATRICK CANFIELD, and YELENA RODIN ____________ Appeal 2011-006324 Application 11/308,248 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006324 Application 11/308,248 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 13 (App. Br. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 1 follows: 1. A system comprising: a windshield with a top side, a bottom side, a right side and a left side, said top side have a notch shape formed therein; an insert having an IR transmissive portion is coupled to said top side within said notch so that the topside with the insert forms a continuous side; a housing rigidly coupled to a vehicle roof structure; and a camera disposed within the housing, wherein the camera is coupled to the insert and to the housing. Claims 1, 4, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bearon (GB 2271139A) in view of Seger (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0208497 A1) (Ans. 3-4). Claims 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bearon in view of Seger and Official Notice (Ans. 4-6). Claims 1, 4, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bearon in view of Strickland (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2002/0109999 A1) (Ans. 6-7). Appeal 2011-006324 Application 11/308,248 3 Claims 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bearon in view of Strickland and Official Notice (Ans. 8- 9). FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer (Ans. 3, et seq.). ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Seger teaches “a housing rigidly coupled to a vehicle roof structure; and a camera disposed within the housing, wherein the camera is coupled to the insert and to the housing” (emphasis added), as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 9? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious because Seger does not teach the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 5-6). In support of their contention, Appellants argue that “Seger teaches away from a camera mount secured to the roof of a vehicle . . . [b]ecause Seger teaches a camera mount secured to the windshield” (id. at 6). The Examiner found, however, that Seger teaches that a camera and a housing (i.e., cover) are coupled to the same windshield and therefore, that Appeal 2011-006324 Application 11/308,248 4 “the windshield couples the camera and the cover, indirectly” (Ans. 10). We agree with the Examiner’s finding. Our reviewing Court requires us to give a claim its broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants’ Specification shows a camera 46a coupled to a housing 36 via a bracket 54 (FIG. 3). Thus, neither the claim language itself nor Appellants’ Specification requires the camera to be directly coupled to the housing without any intervening objects. Seger discloses a camera 50 coupled to the windshield 10 and a housing 30 coupled to the windshield 10 (FIG. 1). Accordingly, under the proper claim construction, Seger’s teaching of a camera coupled to a housing via the windshield qualifies as the coupling that is recited in claim 1. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious. We also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of the other claims on appeal (i.e., claims 4, 8, 9, 11, and 13) because Appellants did not set forth any separate or distinct arguments for those claims (see App. Br. 6-8).1 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). 1 Because we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting all of the claims on appeal as obvious over Bearon, Seger and/or Official Notice, we find it unnecessary to review the Examiner’s rejection over Bearon, Strickland, and/or Official Notice. Appeal 2011-006324 Application 11/308,248 5 AFFIRMED tkl