Ex Parte Bally et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201813800697 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/800,697 03/13/2013 153508 7590 09/05/2018 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP/Magna 650 Trade Centre Way Suite 200 KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA Nazar F. Bally 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. MAG04 P-2060-42306 4961 EXAMINER MATT, MARNIE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): patent@honigman.com tflory@honigman.com asytsma@honigman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NAZAR F. BALLY and PATRICK MILLER1 Appeal2018-000471 Application 13/800,697 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Magna Electronics Inc., as the real party in interest. 2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Mar. 13, 2013 (claiming benefit of US 61/649,216 filed May 18, 2012 and US 61/611,607 filed Mar. 16, 2012); Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed June 13, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Oct. 16, 2017. We also refer to the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Dec. 13, 2016; and Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Aug. 15, 2017. Appeal2018-000471 Application 13/800,697 Appellants 'Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns systems and methods for diagnosing a condition in a vehicle video control system. The video control system includes video processing circuitry, a video driver that receives and amplifies a video signal from the video processing circuitry to transmit the signal over a video cable to a video display. The video driver is powered by a video driver power supply with a current sensor connected between the video driver power supply and the video driver. A microcontroller connected to the current sensor determines the current sensed by the sensor. The microcontroller determines a diagnostic condition of the video cable based on the determined sensed current and a short to battery input (which occurs when an output voltage of the video driver exceeds a supply voltage of the video driver power supply). The video control system also includes communication circuitry that communicates with a vehicle controller. Spec. ,r,r 2, 4--6; Abstract. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A system for determining a diagnostic condition of a video connection with a display module in a vehicle, the system compnsmg: video processing circuitry providing a video signal; a video driver receiving the video signal and amplifying it for transmission over a video cable, wherein the video driver is powered by a video driver power supply; a current sensor in connection with the video driver power supply and the video driver; 2 Appeal2018-000471 Application 13/800,697 a microcontroller operatively connected to the current sensor, wherein the microcontroller is operable to determine the current level sensed using the current sensor during operation of the video driver; wherein the microcontroller receives a short to battery input from the video driver that is triggered responsive to an output voltage of the video driver exceeding a supply voltage of the video driver power supply; wherein the microcontroller is operable to determine a diagnostic condition of the video cable based at least in part on (a) the determination of the current level and (b) the short to battery input; and wherein said microcontroller forms part of a video control system that includes communication circuitry that communicates with a vehicle controller. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Payne (US 6,693,524 Bl, issued Feb. 17, 2004), Camilleri et al. (US 2006/0125919 Al, published June 15, 2006) ("Camilleri"), and Heilmann et al. (US 2009/0212543 Al, published Aug. 27, 2009) ("Heilmann"). ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Payne, Camilleri, and Heilmann would have taught or suggested: a current sensor in connection with the video driver power supply and the video driver; a microcontroller operatively connected to the current sensor, wherein the microcontroller is operable to determine the 3 Appeal2018-000471 Application 13/800,697 current level sensed using the current sensor during operation of the video driver; [ and] wherein the microcontroller is operable to determine a diagnostic condition of the video cable based at least in part on (a) the determination of the current level and (b) the short to battery input ( claim 1 ), within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 12, and 17? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 12, and 17) as being obvious in view of Payne, Camilleri, and Heilmann. See Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 4--8, 13-18. Appellants contend that Payne, Camilleri, and Heilmann do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14--32; Reply Br. 2-15. Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia, that Payne (as cited by the Examiner-see Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 5, 14--17 (citing Payne col. 5, 11. 62---63; Fig. 4, element 170)) fails to teach or suggest a current sensor. See Appeal Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 2-6). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner-cited portions of Payne do not describe the disputed current sensor. As explained by Appellants, a fuse or over current protection device (Payne col. 5, 11. 62---63; Fig. 4, element I 70) would not suggest a current sensor to a person of ordinary skill in the art (supra). The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the cited portions of Payne teach or suggest these features. As further pointed out by Appellants, it is also unclear how the cited portions of Payne, Camilleri, and Heilmann may be combined to describe a microcontroller connected to the 4 Appeal2018-000471 Application 13/800,697 current sensor to determine the current level sensed during operation of the video driver. See, e.g., Reply Br. 4--9. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Payne, Camilleri, and Heilmann renders obvious Appellants' claim 1. Independent claims 12 and 17 include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2-11, 13- 16, and 18-20 depend on and stand with claims 1, 12, and 17, respectively. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuasively shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation