HUF HULSBECK & FURST GMBH & CO. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2021

2020003448 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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. 15/123,371 09/02/2016 Wolfgang Buss 260620-401618 3833 159773 7590 12/02/2021 HONIGMAN LLP/MHS 650 TRADE CENTRE WAY Suite 200 Kalamazoo, MI 49002-0402 EXAMINER SECHSER, JILL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2021 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): jkrumpe@honigman.com patent@honigman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WOLFGANG BUSS ____________ Appeal 2020-003448 Application 15/123,371 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22–43. Claims 1–21 are canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HUF HULSBECK & FURST GMBH & CO. KG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003448 Application 15/123,371 2 The present invention relates generally to a camera device for the rear region of a vehicle. See Spec. Abstr. Claim 22, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 22. A camera device for a rear region of a vehicle, the camera device comprising: a drive unit operatively connected via a transmission mechanism to a carriage, wherein the carriage mechanically holds a camera and the drive unit can move the carriage together with the camera at least between a standby position and a recording position along a movement direction and the camera is connected to a camera cable in order to transmit image data, wherein the camera has a cable port for the camera cable, the cable port positioned laterally relative to the movement direction of the camera such that the camera cable extends from the cable port in a direction transverse to the movement direction of the camera. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Lee US 2007/0041726 A1 Feb. 22, 2007 Schuetz US 2009/0309971 A1 Dec. 17, 2009 Barthel ’057 US 2012/0257057 A1 Oct. 11, 2012 Barthel ’467 US 2014/0085467 A1 Mar. 27, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 22–27 and 29–43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schuetz, Barthel ’057, and Lee. Final Act. 3–10. Appeal 2020-003448 Application 15/123,371 3 Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schuetz, Barthel ’057, Lee, and Barthel ’467. Final Act. 11 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Schuetz and Lee collectively teach or suggest the cable port positioned laterally relative to the movement direction of the camera, as set forth in claim 22? Appellant contends that “the Examiner asserts that Lee ‘teaches the cable port positioned laterally relative to the movement direction of the camera . . .’ with little to no explanation other than citing to paragraphs [0044] and [0054] and Figures 2, 5, and 7 of Lee.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also contends that “the Examiner appears to take a different position in the Advisory Action by suggesting that ‘Schuetz is used to teach the ‘camera port’ . . . .’” Id. Appellant summarizes that “these rejections fall well short of the requirements set forth in MPEP §706” (id.) because “the Office Action glosses over the claim limitations and simply summarily rejects the claim based on conclusory statements regarding Lee.” Id. at 9. As such, Appellant contends that “neither Lee nor Schuetz discloses a cable port positioned laterally relative to a movement direction of the camera.” Id. We agree with Appellant. Although the Examiner finds that “Schuetz’s plug connector may be interpreted as the claimed cable port . . . because the Appellant’s Appeal 2020-003448 Application 15/123,371 4 Specification describes a camera port as a means to plug the cable into” (Ans. 4), we agree with Appellant that “to the extent Schuetz’s camera (31) has a cable port, any such cable port is not positioned laterally relative to the movement direction of the camera. Rather, . . . any such cable port is positioned rearward and aligned with the movement direction of the camera.” Reply Br. 5; see also Schuetz Fig. 6A. The Examiner acknowledges this discrepancy in Schuetz (see Final Act. 4; Ans. 4) and imports Lee to teach a camera having a cable port positioned laterally relative to the movement direction of the camera. See Final Act. 5 (citing Lee ¶¶ 44, 54, Figs. 2, 5, 7); Ans. 5. However, we agree with Appellant “neither Lee nor Schuetz discloses a cable port positioned laterally relative to a movement direction of the camera.” Appeal Br. 9. Here, the Examiner finds that “Lee teaches a vertical slip ring 370/slip ring main body 371 positioned laterally to the horizontal movement of the camera unit 110 (as shown in figure 3) and lower coupling cable 162 extends from vertical slip ring 370/slip ring main body 371 transverse to the horizontal movement of the camera unit 110 (as shown in figures 2–3, 5– 6).” Ans. 5. In other words, the Examiner imports Lee to teach “a camera rotating horizontally and the electronic wiring for the camera is perpendicular to the camera.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). However, we find that even if Lee’s vertical slip ring 370 and slip ring main body 371 are positioned laterally to the horizontal movement of the camera unit 110, as found by the Examiner, claim 22 requires that the camera’s port be positioned laterally relative to the movement direction of the camera, not the wiring/cable. See claim 22. Appeal 2020-003448 Application 15/123,371 5 Stated differently, the Examiner fails to sufficiently explain how Lee’s vertical slip ring 370/slip ring main body 371 is a camera port, given that Lee merely describes the vertical slip ring 370 as being “installed inside the cover bearing 350” (Lee ¶ 49), not the camera. Also, Lee describes the slip ring as “provid[ing] the structure in which the coupling cable 160 connects the rotating motor circuit board 155 and the fixed power circuit board 173 without being entangled.” Lee ¶ 50. In other words, as noted by Appellant, Lee, like Schuetz, fails to describe its camera as having a cable port positioned laterally relative to the movement direction of the camera. At best, Lee’s slip ring configuration is connected to a connection socket 157 located on the motor circuit board 155 and the wiring 162 hangs vertically/laterally to the horizontal movement of the camera. See Lee Fig. 5. However, the Examiner fails to direct our attention to a camera port positioned laterally, in Schuetz and/or Lee, as set forth in the claims. Furthermore, claim 22 also requires that the camera cable extends from the cable port in a direction transverse to the movement direction of the camera. See claim 22. The Examiner fails to direct our attention to where Lee’s vertical slip ring 370/slip ring main body 371 and lower coupling cable 162 extends from a cable port in a direction transverse to the horizontal movement of the camera unit 110. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Lee combined with Schuetz teach the aforementioned port features, as recited in sole independent claim 22. The Examiner also has not found that Barthel ’057 and/or Barthel ’467 teach this feature. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appeal 2020-003448 Application 15/123,371 6 Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 22–43. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 22–43 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 22–27, 29–43 103 Schuetz, Barthel ’057, Lee 22–27, 29–43 28 103 Schuetz, Barthel ’057, Lee, Barthel ’467 28 Overall Outcome 22–43 REVERSED