Ex Parte Elliott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12484206 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/484,206 06/13/2009
51111 7590
AKACHANLLP
Melvin Chan
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 710
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
06/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Grant Arthur John Elliott
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.
ELABP070 1818
EXAMINER
BAILEY, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
PTO-INBOX@AKACHANLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRANT AR THUR JOHN ELLIOTT and
MARCUS ROBERT PATTERSON
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
Technology Center 2400
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-29. App. Br. 5---6. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 11-14, 16-18, and 21-25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dunn (US 2009/0310065 Al; Dec. 17,
2009), Hett (US 2002/0003592 Al; Jan. 10, 2002), and Novin (US
2007/0252056 Al; Nov. 1, 2007). Final Act. 9-16; Ans. 7-9.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dunn,
Hett, Novin, and Walker (US 2002/0168157 Al; Nov. 14, 2002). Final Act.
16-17.
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dunn, Hett, Novin, and Matthies (US 6,498,592B1; Dec. 24, 2002). Final
Act. 17-18.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Dunn, Hett, Novin, Matthies, and Lowry (US 2002/0097967 Al; July
25, 2002). Final Act. 19.
Claim 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Dunn, Hett, Novin, and Dwyer (US 2005/0225733 Al; Oct. 13, 2005).
Final Act. 20; Ans. 7-9.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dunn and Novin. Final Act. 20-22.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dunn,
Novin, and Dwyer. Final Act. 22-23.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a display unit including groups of
light-emitting elements mounted to a support structure such that the display
may be easily and safely installed and reconfigured while retaining both
strength and positional accuracy." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
2
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
1. A light emitting display system, comprising:
a first light emitting tile having a plurality of light
emitting elements disposed thereon and a first connecting
member attached thereto;
a second light emitting tile having a plurality of light
emitting elements disposed thereon and a second connecting
member attached thereto; and
a structural support having a first structural member
connected to a second structural member;
wherein the first connecting member is connected to the
second connecting member;
wherein the first and second light emitting tiles are
coupled to the first structural member; and
wherein the structural support can be collapsed while the
first and second light emitting tiles remain coupled to the first
structural member.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4--7, 11-14, 16-18, AND 21-25
OVER DUNN, HETT, AND NOVIN
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11-14, 16--18, and 21-25
The Examiner finds Dunn, Hett, and Novin teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 9-11.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. The Examiner failed to provide an articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 6-
7; see also Reply Br. 4.
11. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined the references because Novin's LCD is fully integrated, while
Dunn provides a backlight portion separate from the LCD. App. Br. 7-8.
3
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
Dunn teaches away from integrating backlighting and crystal displays. App.
Br. 8 (citing Dunn i-fi-16, 8); see also Reply Br. 5.
[A] person having ordinary skill in the art would not combine
the references because the systems of N ovin and Hett serve
entirely different purposes. Novin is a wall-mounting system
for general consumers. Figure 1. For example, a consumer can
mount a large TV onto a wall using N ovin' s system. Hett is an
aircraft display system for aviation. Paragraph 32.
App. Br. 8.
111. The Examiner has not shown the recited (claim 1) "structural
support having a first structural member." App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 5.
"There is no suggestion how display tiles for planes (Hett) can be combined
with Novin's display mounting apparatus for mounting televisions on a wall.
For example, the carrier lacks openings in proper positions for screws, bolts,
and other attachment mechanisms that the mounting apparatus ofNovin
requires." App. Br. 9.
The carrier of Hett includes four "cut-out" areas (i.e.; raised
areas) to place tiles into. See paragraph 18. On the other hand,
as seen in figure 5B of Dunn, tiles 502 are fixed using securing
elements 597 at a rear position of the tiles. These securing
elements would obstruct access between tiles making it
impossible to combine the two systems.
App. Br. 9.
1v. The references do not show the recited (claim 1) "structural
support can be collapsed while the first and second light emitting tiles
remain coupled to the first structural member." "[I]n Dunn, the tiles are
locked into place by the mounting structure to a single position. Similarly,
the system in Hett shows a system where tiles are set into position with a
bezel, screen divider, and cavity. Paragraph 33; figure 5." App. Br. 9-10.
"Novin is a system for mounting a single LCD TV. See figures 1---6. Thus,
4
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
N ovin does not show or suggest how first and second light emitting tiles
would even work in its system." App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 7.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Contrary to Appellants' argument i, the Examiner provided an
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion
of obviousness. The Examiner reasoned:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught
by Dunn with a structural support having a first structural
member connected to a second structural member as taught by
Hett et al. and with wherein the structural support can be
collapsed while the first and second light emitting tiles remain
coupled to the first structural member as taught by Novin in
order to provide for a display system having redundancy
capabilities without vastly increasing costs (see Hett et al. par.
0006) and to provide for a support structure being in a fully
collapsed position (see Novin par. 0059).
Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 3--4.
Contrary to Appellants' argument ii, the Examiner relies on N ovin for
teaching a collapsible structural support, and not for teaching integrating
backlighting and crystal displays. Final Act. 10 (citing N ovin i-fi-1 59-60).
Further, regarding Novin and Hett, Appellants' invention, Novin, and Hett
are all in the field of display units. See Spec. i12; Novin, Abstract; Hett,
Abstract. Thus, a skilled artisan would have combined the references. See
Ans. 4---6.
Contrary to Appellants' argument iii,
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
5
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner relies on Dunn for all limitations except for the
recited "a structural support having a first structural member connected to a
second structural member" of claim 1, for which the Examiner relies on
Hett, and except for the recited "wherein the structural support can be
collapsed while the first and second light emitting tiles remain coupled to the
first structural member" of claim 1, for which the Examiner relies on Novin.
Final Act. 10 (citing Hett i-f 18, Novin i-fi-1 59---60). The Examiner explains
why the combined teachings of the references teach the claim limitations.
Final Act. 11. To the extent Hett's carrier lacks openings or to the extent
that Dunn's securing elements would obstruct access between Hett's tiles,
these arguments do not squarely address the Examiner's reliance on Hett for
only the structural support; nor do they squarely address what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to a skilled artisan as
explained by the Examiner. See Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 6.
Regarding argument iv, the Examiner relies on Novin for teaching a
collapsible structural support; Novin, when combined with Dunn and Hett,
teaches the recited "wherein the structural support can be collapsed while the
first and second light emitting tiles remain coupled to the first structural
member" in claim 1. Final Act. 10 (citing Novin i-fi-1 59-60); see also Ans. 6.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 4---6, 11-14, 16-18, and 21-25, which are not separately argued
with particularity.
6
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
The Examiner finds
Claim 7
Dunn teaches wherein the plurality of light-emitting elements
disposed on one of the first light-emitting tile and the second
light-emitting tile comprise light-emitting diodes of different
colors (see par. 0008, teaches lights in tiles for a display that
may be LEDs where [] having LEDs of different colors in a
display would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the
art).
Final Act. 12.
Appellants principally argue that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would only use one color for backlighting. App. Br. 10-11; see also
Reply Br. 5, 7.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanation that
using different colors for backlighting was well-known by one of ordinary
skill in the art. Ans. 7. For example, Roth (US 2007/0001994 Al; Jan. 4,
2007) (i-f 7) describes three-color backlighting. Id. Notably, the newly
added references in the Examiner's Answer were added only as directly
corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding in
the Final Action.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 3 OVER DUNN, HETT, NOVIN, AND
WALKER
The Examiner finds Walker's bonding a display tile to a fiberoptic
plate teaches the recited subject matter of claim 3. Final Act. 17 (citing
Walker i131 ). The Examiner reasons:
7
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught
by Dunn and the limitations as taught by Hett et al. and N ovin
regarding claim 1 with wherein the first attachment mechanism
is disposed substantially within a center of a back surface of the
first light-emitting tile, wherein the second attachment
mechanism is disposed substantially within a center of a back
surface of the second light-emitting tile as taught by Walker et
al. in order to provide for manufacturing of a multi-tiled,
seamless flat-panel display (see Walker et al. par. 0029).
Final Act. 17.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "A person having ordinary skill in the art would not combine
Walker with the three references identified by the examiner. Walker is
about how to manufacture a two-dimensional matrix of plastic optical fibers.
Abstract. This is a completely different [field] than the other references
(Dunn, Hett, and Novin)." App. Br. 11-12.
11. "[Walker's] fiberoptic plate (i.e., used to transmit light though
optical fibers) is not an attachment mechanism. If it were used as such, it
would distort or even break, causing a display error or a structural fault
resulting in a display falling and injuring people beneath the display." App.
Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 7-8.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument i, we agree with the Examiner's
reasoning. See Final Act. 17. We also agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner's further explanation: "the references are in the same technology
field of displays where Walker specifically recites '[t]he present invention
8
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
relates to a method and apparatus for manufacturing a large, multi-tiled,
seamless flat-panel display ... ' (see Walker et al. par. 0029)." Ans. 9.
Regarding Appellants' argument ii, we agree with the Examiner that
Walker's bonding a display tile to a fiberoptic plate teaches the recited
subject matter of claim 3. See Final Act. 17; see also Ans. 9-10, and Walker
,-r 31. Further, the Examiner, in rejecting claim 2, relies on Dunn for
teaching the attachment mechanism itself. See Final Act. 11. The
Examiner's further reliance on Walker is for the more detailed features
recited in claim 3. The rejection is based on the combination of references.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8 AND 9 OVER DUNN, HETT, NOVIN,
AND MATTHIES
The Examiner finds Dunn, Hett, N ovin, and Matthies teach all
limitations of claims 8 and 9. Final Act. 17-18. The Examiner finds
Matthies's tiles having serrated edges teach the recited subject matter of
claims 8 and 9. Final Act. 18 (citing Matthies col. 17, 11. 33-39; col. 2, 11.
40-41).
Appellants argue the Examiner is inconsistent, finding connecting
members shown in Dunn and finding connecting members shown in
Matthies. App. Br. 12-13; see also Reply Br. 6.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument, we agree with the Examiner that
Matthies's tiles having serrated edges teach the recited subject matter of
claims 8 and 9. Final Act. 18; see also Ans. 10-11, and Matthies col. 17, 11.
9
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
33-39; col. 2, 11. 40-41. In rejecting claim 1, from which claims 8 and 9
depend, the Examiner relied on Dunn for teaching the first and second
connecting members. See Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner's further reliance
on Matthies is for the more detailed features recited in claims 8 and 9. The
rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 9.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 10 AND 15 OVER DUNN, HETT,
NOVIN, MATTHIES, AND LOWRY
The Examiner finds Dunn, Hett, N ovin, Matthies, and Lowry teach all
limitations of claims 10 and 15. Final Act. 19. The Examiner finds Lowry's
clips and tabs teach the recited subject matter of claims 10 and 15. Final
Act. 19 (citing Lowry i-f 19).
Appellants argue the Examiner is inconsistent, finding connecting
members shown in Dunn and finding connecting members shown in Lowry.
App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 6.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument, we agree with the Examiner that
Lowry's clips and tabs teach the recited subject matter of claims 10 and 15.
Final Act. 19; see also Ans. 11-12, and Lowry (i-f 19).
In rejecting claims 1 and 11, from which claims 10 and 15 depend,
respectively, the Examiner relied on Dunn for teaching the first and second
connecting members. See Final Act. 9-10, 12. The Examiner's further
reliance on Lowry is for the more detailed features recited in claims 10 and
15. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references.
10
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 15.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 19 AND 20 OVER DUNN, HETT,
NOVIN, AND DWYER
The Examiner finds Dunn, Hett, N ovin, and Dwyer teach all
limitations of claims 19 and 20. Final Act. 14, 20; see also Ans. 7-9
(correcting the rejection headings). The Examiner finds Dwyer teaches the
further recited subject matter of claim 19. Final Act. 20; Ans. 8. The
Examiner finds Novin teaches the further recited subject matter of claim 20.
Final Act. 14; Ans. 8-9.
Appellants argue the Examiner is inconsistent in finding the prior art
teaches the structural members. App. Br. 13-14.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument, we agree with the Examiner that
Dwyer teaches the further recited subject matter of claim 19. Final Act. 20;
Ans. 8. We also agree with the Examiner that Novin teaches the further
recited subject matter of claim 20. Final Act. 14; Ans. 8-9.
In rejecting claim 1, from which claims 19 and 20 depend, the
Examiner relied on Hett for teaching the structural members. See Final Act.
10. The Examiner's further reliance on Dwyer and Novin is for the more
detailed features recited in claims 19 and 20, respectively. The rejection is
based on the combined teachings of the references.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 20.
11
Appeal2013-009498
Application 12/484,206
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 26-28 OVER DUNN AND NOVIN
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dunn and Novin. Final Act. 20-22.
Appellants do not present any further arguments for the patentability
of claims 26-28. See App. Br. 14.
For reasons discussed above, we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 26-28.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 29 OVER DUNN, NOVIN, AND DWYER
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dunn,
Novin, and Dwyer. Final Act. 22-23.
Appellants do not present any further arguments for the patentability
of claim 29. See App. Br. 14.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 29.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-29 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 ).
AFFIRMED
12