12403022 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

Ex Parte Grider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 2014

12403022 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/403,022 03/12/2009 Duane M. Grider 81178611 8874 28395 7590 12/22/2014 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER NWUGO, OJIAKO K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DUANE M. GRIDER and DANIEL WILLIAM FORTHOFFER ____________________ Appeal 2012-008865 Application 12/403,022 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 2 BACKGROUND The claims are directed to a display panel for an electrical charging system to display its status (Spec. Abstract). The display panel is mounted 1 The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. 2 Our Decision refers to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Nov. 17, 2011 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 3, 2012 (“Ans.”), the Appellants’ Reply Brief filed May 17, 2012 (“Rep. Br.”), and the Specification as originally filed on March 12, 2009 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-008865 Application 12/403,022 2 on a trim component in the interior portion of the vehicle defined by windows and is positioned so that it can be viewed from the exterior of the vehicle (id.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vehicle comprising: a vehicle body having an interior portion partially defined by a plurality of windows, the interior portion having a plurality of trim components therein; an electrical charging system, within the vehicle body, configured to receive an electrical charge from an external source; and a display panel connected to the electrical charging system to display a status thereof, the display panel being mounted on one of the trim components in a position such that the information displayed thereby is visible from a portion exterior to the vehicle body. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 5–10, 15, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ozawa 3 and Meinke 4 (Ans. 5). Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ozawa, Meinke, and Rothkop 5 (Ans. 9). Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ozawa, Meinke, and Imai 6 (Ans. 9). 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,757,595, issued May 26, 1998. 4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0068857 A1, published March 20, 2008. 5 U.S. Patent No. 6,914,521 B2, issued July 5, 2005. 6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0273216 A1, published Dec. 8, 2005. Appeal 2012-008865 Application 12/403,022 3 Claims 13 and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ozawa, Meinke, and Tseng 7 (Ans. 11). Claim 16 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ozawa, Meinke, and Crowe 8 (Ans. 11). Claim 17 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ozawa, Meinke, and Dukach 9 (Ans. 12). ANALYSIS Claim 1 In the rejection, the Examiner notes that Ozawa teaches a display panel for an electrical charge system (Ans. 6 citing Ozawa Figs. 1–3 and col. 3, ll. 23–40, col. 6, ll. 33–45). The display panel is positioned in an exterior charging compartment of an electric vehicle which is visible from the exterior of the vehicle (id.). Ozawa also teaches that the driver can view the state of charge of the battery with an indicator on the instrument panel by turning an ignition key to turn on the vehicle’s electrical system (id.). The Examiner states that Ozawa has no explicit teaching of a display on a trim component, and therefore relies on Meinke to teach this feature (id.). Meinke teaches a vehicle trim component adapted to display indicia or other markings when illuminated (Meinke ¶ 28, Fig. 1). Meinke also states that the trim component can refer to any component located on the exterior or interior surface of a vehicle (Meinke ¶ 30). 7 U.S. Patent No. 5,563,491, issued Oct. 8, 1996. 8 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0052888 A1, published March 4, 2010. 9 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0036622 A1, published Feb. 26, 2004. Appeal 2012-008865 Application 12/403,022 4 Appellants argue that Ozawa and Meinke fail to teach a display mounted on an interior trim component that is visible from a position exterior to the vehicle body (App. Br. 4–6). Specifically, Appellants argue that Ozawa does not teach a display disposed on an interior trim component, and that Meinke’s “concealed indicium” is disposed either on an exterior trim component visible from the exterior, or on the interior visible to the driver, but not on the interior visible to the exterior (id. at 5). We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ozawa and Meinke teaches the claimed invention. Ozawa teaches a display panel for an electrical charge system which is visible from the exterior of the vehicle (Ozawa Figs. 1–3 and col. 3, ll. 23–40, col. 6, ll. 33–45). Meinke teaches positioning of “indicium”, not just “concealed indicium”, for display on any interior or exterior trim components (Meinke ¶¶ 28, 30). Meinke discloses, “the term ‘indicium’ refers to any sort of marking that can be visually observed.” (Id. at ¶ 29). Viewing the two references together, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art, using ordinary creativity, would have considered it obvious to provide a display panel in the interior windowed portion of a vehicle which is visible from the exterior, as recited in claim 1. 10 Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error by the Examiner, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. 10 KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-421 (2007)(“A person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Appeal 2012-008865 Application 12/403,022 5 Claims 2–18 No separate arguments were presented for dependent claims 2–18. Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-18. 11 Claims 19 and 20 For similar reasons to those stated with respect to claim 1, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 19 and 20. 12 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED dw 11 In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 12 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).