Ex Parte Burkum et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2011

11198101 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PHILIP BURKUM, DARREL E. POZZESI,
LUIS ALDARONDO, TERRY M. LAMBRIGHT,
STERLING CHAFFINS, and DANIEL W. YOUNGBERG
____________________

Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,1011
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,101

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ invention concerns an electroluminescent sign. The sign
may be conveniently driven using standard illumination instructions in
coded information located on the sign and with standard drivers made to
control such custom signs with a variety of illumination choices (Spec. 4).
Claims 1 and 18 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for selectively illuminating an electroluminescent sign,
comprising steps of:
creating an electroluminescent sign having an electroluminescent
region and a coded information region, the coded information region
providing instructions to illuminate the electroluminescent region;
reading the coded information region to obtain the instructions; and
selectively illuminating the electroluminescent region according to the
instructions provided by the coded information region.
18. An electroluminescent sign, comprising:
an electroluminescent region including an electroluminescent
material; and
a coded information region integral to the electroluminescent sign, the
coded information region containing instructions for selectively illuminating
at least a portion of the electroluminescent material.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Castle US 5,848,830 Dec. 15, 1998
Blum US 6,982,649 B2 Jan. 3, 2006
Claims 13-15, 18, and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Blum.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blum.
Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,101

3
Claims 16, 17, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blum in view of Castle.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 3, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 14,
2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sep. 26, 2008) for their
respective details.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that Blum lacks a coded information region such as
that recited in claims 13 and 27; that Blum does not teach a coded
information region integral to the electroluminescent sign, as recited in claim
18; and that in any case, the elements cited by the Examiner as
corresponding to the coded information region do not contain instructions to
illuminate the sign, as the claims require (App. Br. 15). The Examiner finds
that identity device 402, communicating with antennas 501, 502,
corresponds to the claimed coded information region providing instructions
to illuminate the electroluminescent region (Ans. 4). The Examiner further
finds that because floor covering 102 is disclosed as housing components of
floor display system 100, floor covering 102 may be construed to correspond
to a coded information integral to the electroluminescent sign, as claim 18
requires (Ans. 10-11).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Blum teach an electroluminescent sign having a coded
information region that provides instructions to illuminate the
electroluminescent region of the sign?
Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,101

4
2. Does Blum teach a coded information region integral to the
electroluminescent sign?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Blum
1. Blum teaches “a contact-less input device 401 capable of receiving
identification information from an identity device 402 carried by [a] person”
(col. 10, ll. 20-23).
2. “The identity information obtained from the identity device 402
could be supplied by the wireless port 401 to the controller 103, which could
then access a database, such as database 109, to obtain information relevant
to the person based on the identity information” (col. 10, ll. 27-31).
3. [T]he floor display system could be caused to display
information specifically relating to or directed to the
person. . . . [T]he controller of the floor display system
could cross-reference the purchase history of the person
with the sales or promotional items that are currently
available . . . . Based on the person’s purchase history,
the floor display system could display information
notifying the person that a certain item potentially of
interest to the person is on sale
(col. 10, ll. 34-44).
4. “[A] floor covering 102 according to [Blum] could include
antennas 501 and 502 arranged along edges of the floor covering” (col. 13,
ll. 29-31).

Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,101

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.’” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778
F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 13, 14, 16, 17, AND 27
With regard to the claimed coded information region containing
instructions to illuminate the electroluminescent region of a sign, Blum
teaches an identity device 402 carried by a person and containing that
person’s identity information (FF 1). Such information can be supplied by
wireless port 401 to controller 103, which could then access database 109 to
obtain information relevant to the person based on the identity information
(FF 2). Blum further teaches that, based on the relevant information, the
floor display system could be caused to display information specifically
relating to or directed to the person, such as a personal greeting or
notification that items of interest to that person are on sale (FF 3). Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that Blum teaches a coded information region
(identity device 402) containing instructions to illuminate the
electroluminescent region of a sign.
Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,101

6
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that identity device
402 and antennas 501, 502 do not constitute a coded information region of
the sign because they are physically separate from the display (App. Br. 12,
14). We find no language in independent claims 13 or 27 that requires all of
the claimed sign elements to be contiguous or otherwise physically attached.
Because we find that Blum teaches all of the elements of
representative claim 13, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 13, 14, and 27 under § 102 as being anticipated by Blum, and claims
16 and 17 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Castle,
and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
CLAIM 14
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Blum fails to
teach a coded information reader configured to read wireless codes (App. Br.
14). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that wireless port 401 and
antennas 501, 502, taken together, correspond to the claimed coded
information reader and that the elements are configured to read wireless
codes (Ans. 4).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Blum teaches all of the
elements of claim 14, and we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection.
CLAIM 15
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Blum fails to
teach that the electroluminescent sign is physically supported at least
partially by the coded information reader (App. Br. 15). Blum teaches that
antennas 501, 502, which we find supra to correspond to the coded
information reader, are arranged along edges of the floor covering 102 (FF
4). Because Figure 5 makes clear that the antennas are placed within the
Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,101

7
floor covering, and the floor covering supports the electroluminescent sign
100, Figure 5 of Blum illustrates an electroluminescent sign supported at
least partially by the coded information reader, i.e., by antennas 501, 502.
As a result, we agree with the Examiner that Blum teaches all of the
elements of claim 15, and we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection.
CLAIMS 18-26
The Examiner finds that Blum teaches that floor covering 102 at least
partially physically supports the electroluminescent sign 100 (Ans. 10). The
Examiner interprets Blum’s teaching that “components of the floor display
system . . . could be housed completely internally to the floor covering 102”
to mean that floor covering 102 corresponds to the claimed coded
information region, and also that the coded information region is integral to
the electroluminescent sign (Ans. 10-11) .
We disagree with the Examiner, and agree with Appellants’ argument,
summarized supra, that Blum does not teach a coded information region
integral to the electroluminescent sign (App. Br. 14). The Examiner makes
clear in the body of the rejection that identity device 402 and antennas 501,
502 are read as corresponding to the coded information region recited in the
claims (Ans. 4). Antennas 501, 502 receive electromagnetic signals but
cannot be said to “contain[] instructions for selectively illuminating at least a
portion” of the sign. Thus, even though antennas 501, 502 may be embedded
in floor covering 102 (FF 4), such embedding cannot transform floor
covering 102 into a coded information region. Identity device 402 may be
fairly interpreted to contain instructions for illuminating the sign, but Blum
teaches that device 402 is carried by a person (FF 1). Identity device 402
therefore cannot be considered integral to the electroluminescent sign.
Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,101

8
We find that Blum does not teach a coded information region integral
to the electroluminescent sign. Accordingly, because Blum does not teach all
the limitations of claim 18, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 18 and 23-26 under § 102 as being anticipated by Blum, and claims
19-22 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Castle, and
we will not sustain the rejections.
CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 6, AND 8-12
Appellants rely on the arguments made with respect to the § 102
rejection of claims 13-15, 18, and 23-27 to establish the patentability of
claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-12 (App. Br. 17). Because we sustain the rejections of
claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 27, we will also sustain the § 103 rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-12 as being unpatentable over Blum, for the same
reasons.
CLAIM 4
Appellants separately argue that claim 4, dependent from claim 1, is
patentable because Blum does not teach or suggest an electroluminescent
region and coded information region integral to the electroluminescent sign
(App. Br. 18). As discussed supra with respect to claim 18, we find that
Blum does not teach a coded information region integral to the
electroluminescent sign. Therefore, we find that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 4 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blum, and we will
not sustain the rejection.
CLAIM 7
We agree with Appellants that Blum does not teach affixing the coded
information region to the electroluminescent sign (App. Br. 7). Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 7.
Appeal 2009-008080
Application 11/198,101

9
CONCLUSIONS
1. Blum teaches an electroluminescent sign having a coded
information region that provides instructions to illuminate the
electroluminescent region of the sign.
2. Blum does not teach a coded information region integral to the
electroluminescent sign.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-17, and 27 are
affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 7, and 18-26 are reversed.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc