Ex Parte De Wind et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13919491 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/919,491 06/17/2013
15671 7590 10/03/2016
Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Flory, LLP
2851 Charlevoix Dr., SE, Suite 207
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Darryl P. De Wind
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.
DONOl P-2119 5518
EXAMINER
DOAK, JENNIFER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
sytsma@glbf.com
patents@glbf.com
dark@ glbf. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARRYL P. DEWIND and JOHN T. UKEN
Appeal2015-003453
Application 13/919,491
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to an interior review mirror
assembly.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An interior rearview mirror assembly for a vehicle, said
interior rearview mirror assembly comprising:
a reflective element, wherein said reflective element
comprises a substrate having a front surface that faces generally
toward a driver of a vehicle when said interior rearview mirror
assembly is normally mounted in the vehicle;
Appeal2015-003453
Application 13/919,491
a housing portion positioned at the perimeter of said
reflective element, wherein said housing portion extends
generally along at least a portion of a perimeter region of said
reflective element, and wherein said housing portion has an
exterior surface that faces generally toward the driver of the
vehicle when said interior rearview mirror assembly is normally
mounted in the vehicle, said housing portion having a recess
established at said exterior surface and spaced from said front
surface of said reflective element that is viewable by the driver
of the vehicle when said interior rearview mirror assembly is
normally mounted in the vehicle;
a user input module comprising at least one user input that
is actuatable by a user;
wherein said user input module comprises backlighting
operable to backlight said at least one user input;
wherein said user input module is at least partially
received in said recess at said housing portion; and
wherein said user input module is configured to snap
attach at said housing portion when at least partially received in
said recess at said housing portion.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Skiver US 6,756,912 B2 June 29, 2004
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Skiver.
We reverse the stated rejection. Our reasoning follows.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
establishing the non-patentability of the rejected claims. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
2
Appeal2015-003453
Application 13/919,491
In order for the Examiner to carry the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation, the Examiner must establish where each and every
element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim, is found
in a single prior art reference, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency. See generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Here, the Examiner has not established that Skiver describes an
interior review mirror assembly corresponding to the claimed apparatus, by
specifying how the cited portions of Skiver describe an apparatus that
includes elements/features corresponding to all of the recited
elements/features of any of the appealed independent claims 1, 10, and/or 16
with the elements/features arranged as required by these claims for reasons
argued by Appellants (App. Br. 7-21, 29, 30, 32, 34--37; Reply Br. 1-7, 12-
14).
All of the appealed claims require that the mirror assembly includes a
user input module, a specified reflective element, a specified housing portion
positioned at the perimeter of the reflective element, which housing portion
includes a recess at a specified exterior surface. The user input module is
required to include, inter alia, a user input that is actuatable by a user, and a
backlight operable to backlight the user input. The user input module is
configured to snap attach at the housing portion when the user input module
is at least partially received in the housing portion recess.
The Examiner maintains, inter alia, that Skiver describes a mirror
assembly that includes a reflective element (14), a housing portion (13) and
a user input module comprising buttons 16a and display 52 (Fig. 2),
according to the Examiner (Final Act. 2-3: Ans. 3-5). Moreover, the
3
Appeal2015-003453
Application 13/919,491
Examiner correlates circuit board 22 and light sources 23 of Skiver with the
user input module backlighting feature required by the appealed claims
(Final Act. 3; Ans. 4, 7). Furthermore, the Examiner argues that the
elements of Skiver's mirror assembly that the Examiner correlates with
Appellants' claimed user input module comprise a module that is received in
a recess of Skiver's housing portion (bezel 13, Figs. 1, 2) and which
"module" is configured to snap attach at the housing portion via snap
fingers 42d (Fig. 4).
However, Appellants correctly argue that Skiver discloses that the
snap fingers 42d are part of a map light cover 42b that are used for engaging
the cover with the bottom wall 50 of case 12 (App. Br. 18-19; Skiver, col.
16, 11. 26-29). Even if we could agree with the Examiner that Skiver
describes an input module that includes buttons 16a, circuit board 22, and
light source 23 as part of a module, the Examiner's anticipation findings fall
short in failing to establish that such elements (the module) are configured to
be snap attached at the bezel portion of Skiver that the Examiner relies on as
corresponding to Appellants' housing portion when they are at least partially
received in a housing portion recess as required by all of Appellants'
appealed claims. In this regard and as argued by Appellants, the Examiner
has not carried the burden to establish that Skiver' s snap fingers 42d, which
are used for engaging a map light cover with the bottom wall of case 12 of
Skiver represent structure that would have configured the relied upon
elements of Skiver that are characterized by the Examiner as a user input
module for snap attachment of these elements at the bezel (housing) portion
of Skiver when they are at least partially received in a housing portion recess
(App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 6).
4
Appeal2015-003453
Application 13/919,491
The Examiner appears to have employed an unreasonably broad claim
construction and, consequently, misapplies several features described by
Skiver as if they correspond to certain features of Appellants' claims, such
as the disparate elements of Skiver' s assembly that the Examiner collects
and applies as corresponding to Appellants' user input module and, in
particular, its arrangement with respect to other elements as required by
Appellants' claims (App. Br. 7, 8, 15-20; Reply Br. 3-7, 12-14; see, e.g.,
claim 1 ).
In sum, the evidence of record supports Appellants' arguments and
indicates that the Examiner has not carried the burden to establish that
Skiver describes a review mirror assembly wherein each and every element
of the claimed invention, arranged as required by any of the rejected claims,
is found such that Skiver anticipates any of the claims subject to the
anticipation rejection.
It follows that we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
5