Ex Parte Birman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

13028639 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/028,639 02/16/2011
26096 7590 05/25/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vyacheslav B. Birman
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.
60426-1024 PUSl 9162
EXAMINER
MATHEWS, CRYSTAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VY ACHESLA VB. BIRMAN and
ARTHURS. BROWN
Appeal2015-000919
Application 13/028,639
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EV ANS, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 4--13, and 15-23, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Continental
Automotive Systems, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000919
Application 13/028,639
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to an automobile instrument panel that
includes tell tale light features. See Spec i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reads as follows:
1. A gauge assembly comprising:
a gauge surface including a scale indicative of a vehicle operating
condition;
a main circuit board including at least one light-emitting device;
a second surface spaced apart and in front of the gauge surf ace, the
second surface overlapping a portion of the gauge surface and including at
least one tell tale disposed in front of the gauge surface, wherein the at least
one tall tale defines a selectively illuminatable image; and
a light guide communicating light from the at least one light emitting
device to direct light through the selectively illuminatable image of the at
least one tell tale, wherein the tell tale is spaced a first distance in a first
direction and a second distance in a second direction transverse to the first
direction apart from the at least one light emitting device and the light guide
includes a first surf ace reflecting light in the second direction and a second
surface reflecting a portion of the reflected light from the first surface in the
first direction.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4--13, and 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 2004/0129197 Al; published July 8,
2004) and Adachi et al. (US 7,534,000 Bl; issued May 19, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 4--13, and 15-23 in light
of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in
this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
2
Appeal2015-000919
Application 13/028,639
Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend the cited
portions of Adachi do not disclose that a light guide directs light through the
tell tale, as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue that Adachi
explicitly states that "[i]n situations where information from the second set
of information is to be displayed, the display 22 can control the first light
source 32 so that it does not back-illuminate the LCD 38 and can selectively
control one or more of the light sources 46a through 46h depending on the
quantity of information that is to be displayed." Id. (citing Adachi col. 4, 11.
42--44). Appellants further argue that the proposed combination of
Nakagawa and Adachi is improper because the references teach away from
the proposed modification. Id. at 7. Specifically, Appellants argue that the
size and shape of Adachi' s light guide would destroy the desired appearance
and operation of Nakagawa. Id. at 7. Appellants further argue that the
addition of light guides to Nakagawa is unnecessary. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that "Adachi backlights the LCD
display in two ways," and that the light guide 36 can be configured "to both
employ light that is received from the first light source 32 to back-light the
LCD 38 and to permit light generated by the second light source 34 to be
transmitted directly therethrough." Ans. 9 (citing Adachi Fig. 2, col. 3, 11.
3
Appeal2015-000919
Application 13/028,639
16-20). The Examiner finds that, when the first light source 32 of Adachi
Figure 2 transmits light through the light guide 36 to backlight the LCD 38,
that light illuminates the tell tales displayed on the LCD 3 8. Id. (citing
Adachi Fig. 2, col. 4, 11. 32-39).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and explanation that Adachi's
light guide directs light through the tell tales. See Ans. 8-9. We observe
that Appellants' arguments focus on how Adachi' s second light source
directly backlights the LCD when information from the second set of
information is to be displayed. See App. Br. 5---6 (citing Adachi col. 4, 11.
40---64 ). By contrast, the Examiner relies on how Adachi' s first light source
backlights all or a portion of the LCD display when information from the
first set of information is to be displayed. See Ans. 8-9 (citing Adachi col.
4, 11. 32-39). Thus, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate in scope
with the Examiner's rejection.
ivioreover, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the
Examiner errs in combining Nakagawa and Adachi. Final Act. 3-4. The test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art. In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
( CCP A 1981 ). We agree with the Examiner that "[ s ]electively illuminating
the tell tales displayed on the LCD of Nakagawa using the light guide
structure of Adachi is a combination of known elements performing their
respective functions yielding the predictable result of illuminating an LCD
without placing the light sources directly behind the LCD." Final Act. 6.
Furthermore, the Examiner has articulated persuasive reasoning with a
rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary skill to have modified the
4
Appeal2015-000919
Application 13/028,639
direct backlight structure of Nakagawa with the indirect light guide structure
of Adachi. Id.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
combining Nakagawa and Adachi and finding that the combination discloses
"a light guide communicating light from the at least one light emitting
device to direct light through the selectively illuminatable image of the at
least one tell tale," as claim 1 requires.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 10, which
Appellants argue is patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 6-7. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4--9, 11-13, and 16-20,
22, and 23, for which Appellants make no arguments other than those for the
independent claims from which those claims depend. Id. at 8.
With regard to dependent claim 21, Appellants contend the
combination of Nakagawa and Adachi does not disclose that "the main
circuit board is supported on a side of the gauge surface opposite the second
surface," as recited in claim 21. Id. Appellants' contention, however, is
stated in a conclusory manner, and Appellants provide no persuasive
argument or evidence in support. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 21.
5
Appeal2015-000919
Application 13/028,639
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4--13, and 15-23 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6