Sunrise R&D Holdings, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 14, 2021

2020001627 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 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. 15/626,854 06/19/2017 Brett Bracewell Bonner 72614-25 1029 24256 7590 06/14/2021 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 255 EAST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 1900 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2021 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): CincyPAIR@dinsmore.com elise.merkel@dinsmore.com jennifer.baker@dinsmore.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRETT BRACEWELL BONNER, TITUS ARTHUR JONES, THOMAS GONSIOROWSKI, and TORSTEN VOLKER PLATZ Appeal 2020-001627 Application 15/626,854 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–15, and 17–24. See Final Act. 1. Claims 2 and 16 are canceled. See Amendment dated Oct. 8, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sunrise R&D Holdings LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001627 Application 15/626,854 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to display shelf modules with projectors for displaying product information. Spec. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A display shelf module comprising: a display panel positioned at a front of the display shelf module; a projector disposed within the display shelf module; a front mirror positioned proximate the front of the display shelf module; a plurality of rear mirrors positioned proximate a posterior end of the display shelf module; and an image divider positioned in a first optical path between the projector and the front mirror such that an optical signal from the projector is incident on the image divider, wherein: the projector is arranged to project the optical signal onto the image divider; the image divider is arranged to divide the optical signal from the projector into a plurality of discrete optical signals and direct the plurality of discrete optical signals onto the front mirror; the front mirror is arranged to redirect the plurality of discrete optical signals from the image divider onto the plurality of rear mirrors; and the plurality of rear mirrors are arranged to redirect the plurality of discrete optical signals from the front mirror onto different areas of a rear surface of the display panel such that a plurality of images corresponding to the plurality of discrete optical signals are visible on a front surface of the display panel. Appeal Br. 50 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-001627 Application 15/626,854 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sakata et al. (“Sakata”) US 6,761,458 B2 July 13, 2004 Edney US 6,995,906 B2 Feb. 7, 2006 Horii et al. (“Horii”) US 7,696,897 B2 Apr. 13, 2010 Gambello EPO Pub. No. 0 105 577 A1 Apr. 18, 1984 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–14, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being over the combination of Horii and Sakata. Final Act. 5. Claims 5, 15, 17–20, 22, and 242 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Horii, Sakata, and Gambello. Final Act. 13. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Horii, Sakata, and Edney. Final Act. 14. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 12–14, 21, and 23 Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that “the cited references, either alone or in combination” teach all of the elements of claim 1, from which each of dependent claims 3, 4, 6–8, 12–14, 21, and 23 depends. Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant, however, addresses only Horii in its arguments. For example, Appellant argues that, in Figure 17 of Horii, “none of the mirrors 722, 723, 712, 713, which allegedly correspond to the 2 The Examiner included canceled claim 16 in the rejection heading. Final Act. 13. We omit claim 16 from our claim list for clarity. Appeal 2020-001627 Application 15/626,854 4 front mirror of the claimed subject matter, are positioned proximate the front of a display shelf module” (i.e., proximate one of displays 715, 725, and 733). Appeal Br. 21. Appellant makes other arguments based solely on Horii. See Appeal Br. 20–29. For each disputed limitation, Appellant argues in a conclusory manner that “Sakata does not cure the deficiencies of Horii because Sakata also does not teach or fairly suggest” the disputed limitation. See, e.g., id. at 24, 26, 28. We note that Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Therefore, even if we were to find that Horii does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s cumulative mapping that reads claim 1 on the secondary Sakata reference, as set forth by the Examiner on page 8 of the Final Action. In particular, the Examiner finds column 1, lines 26–32, of Sakata teaches an embodiment of claim 1 directed to a single-box display structure, in the context of rear projection image display. Final Act. 7 (citing Sakata col. 1:26–32). Because Appellant does not address the substance of the Examiner’s specific alternative findings regarding the secondary Sakata reference in either Brief, on this record, we find the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Arguments not timely made regarding the Examiner’s specific alternative findings pertaining to the secondary Sakata reference are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-001627 Application 15/626,854 5 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6–8, 12–14, 21, and 23, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 29; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 9 Claim 9 depends from claims 1 and 7, and recites the limitation further comprising a floating frame positioned within the interior volume of the display shelf module and affixed to the rear panel of the display shelf module, the floating frame comprising a base spaced apart from the top panel and the bottom panel, wherein the projector is positioned on the base of the floating frame such that the projector is spaced apart from the top panel and the bottom panel of the display shelf module. Appeal Br. 52 (Claims App.). Appellant argues claim 9 separately. Id. at 29– 33. Appellant argues that “[t]he cited references, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or fairly suggest a floating frame positioned within the interior volume of the display shelf module.” Id. at 30. Appellant argues that Horii merely discloses a structure including a projector 110, a mirror 111, and screens 701, 702, 703 at depths 704, 705, 706. Id. at 31 (citing Horii Fig. 16). According to Appellant, Figure 16 and other cited figures of Horii “are wholly silent with respect to any structure that could reasonably be characterized as a ‘floating frame,’ as recited in claim 9.” Id. Appellant further argues Sakata is “wholly silent with respect to a floating frame positioned within the interior volume of the display shelf module, as recited in claim 9.” Id. The Examiner concludes the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “a floating frame” is a mount for the projector. Final Act. 11. The Examiner Appeal 2020-001627 Application 15/626,854 6 finds Horii teaches or suggests a projector mounted in different parts of the shelf. Id. (citing Horii Figs. 13–18 and 30). The Examiner also finds Sakata teaches or suggests the disputed limitation and functionally equivalent rearrangements thereof. Id. (citing Sakata col. 3:11–13, cols. 2–4). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred because Appellant does not argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim 9 term “floating frame” is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Nor does Appellant consider the Examiner’s claim interpretation in the rebuttal of the Examiner’s findings. Thus, Appellant’s arguments do not address the rejection actually made by the Examiner. Appellant also fails to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings based on Sakata. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 5, 15, 17–19, 22, and 24 Appellant’s arguments directed to independent claim 15 “parallel the arguments presented above with respect to claim 1,” but are repeated to argue claim 15 and its dependent claims separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 34. Claim 5 depends from claim 1, addressed above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–19, 22, and 24, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 15, and were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 34; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, which depends from claim 1, and was not argued separately. See id. Claim 20 Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and recites the limitation Appeal 2020-001627 Application 15/626,854 7 the display shelf module further comprising a floating frame positioned within the interior volume of the display shelf module and affixed to the rear panel of the display shelf module, the floating frame comprising a base spaced apart from the top panel and the bottom panel, wherein the projector is positioned on the base of the floating frame such that the projector is spaced apart from the top panel and the bottom panel of the display shelf module. Appeal Br. 55 (Claims App.). Appellant’s arguments for the patentability of claim 20 are similar to those made for claim 15. See id. at 42–46. As with the arguments made for claim 15, Appellant does not show that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim 20 term “floating frame” is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Nor does Appellant consider the Examiner’s claim interpretation when rebutting the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 10 and 11 Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and further recites “wherein the floating frame comprises a cantilevered support arm attached to the base.” Appeal Br. 52 (Claims App.). Appellant argues “[b]ecause the cited references do not teach or fairly suggest a floating frame positioned within the interior volume of the display shelf module,” as recited in claim 9, “the cited references also do not teach or fairly suggest a floating frame comprising a cantilevered support arm attached to the base recited in claim 10.” Id. at 48. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 10 for reasons similar to those stated above in the context of claim 9. Appellant does not argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of “floating frame” is Appeal 2020-001627 Application 15/626,854 8 overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Nor does Appellant consider the Examiner’s claim interpretation in rebutting the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 11, argued as a group with claim 10. See Appeal Br. 47– 48. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–15, and 17–24 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–14, 21, 23 103(a) Horii, Sakata 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–14, 21, 23 5, 15, 17–20, 22, 24 103(a) Horii, Sakata, Gambello 5, 15, 17–20, 22, 24 10, 11 103(a) Horii, Sakata, Edney 10, 11 Overall Outcome 1, 3–15, 17–24 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED