Ex Parte Hendron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12465126 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/465,126 05/13/2009
30689 7590 02/17/2016
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott Svend Hendron
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.
18781-US 2959
EXAMINER
WOOLCOCK, MADHU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2016 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 SCOTT SVEND HENDRON, ROBERT CHARLES MOORE,
SEAN L. MOONEY, NICHOLAS E. BOLL WEG, and
KURT A. CHIPPERFIELD 1
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 12-28. Claims 1-11 have been allowed. Final Act. 29. We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1 Appellants identify Deere & Company as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to "an enhanced visibility system for
utility vehicles." Spec. i-f 1. According to the Specification, an operator's
view from a utility vehicle, which may be blocked by an obstruction from
part of the utility vehicle (e.g., a boom or work bucket), may be enhanced
"by making [the] obstruction appear transparent to the operator." Spec. i-f 3.
In a disclosed embodiment, a camera is positioned to capture an image of an
item obstructed from the operator's view wherein the captured image is used
to generate a modified image on a display presented to the operator such that
the operator's view (and, for example, the item), via the display, is no longer
obstructed. Spec. i-fi-15 and 21-22; Figs. 3 and 4.
Claim 21 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below.
21. A method of enhancing an operator's visibility from a
utility vehicle, the method including the steps of:
providing a utility vehicle including a chassis, a work
tool configured to move relative to the chassis to move
material, and an obstruction;
providing a display having an outer perimeter;
capturing an image of a scene positioned beyond the
obstruction of the utility vehicle, the image including at least
the work tool;
providing at least one vantage point of an operator of the
utility vehicle;
identifying a portion of the scene which, absent the
obstruction and the display, would be visible from the at least
one vantage point through the outer perimeter of the display;
creating a modified image from the captured image that
includes the identified portion of the scene; and
displaying the modified image on the display.
2
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 21-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite. Final Act. 2-3.
2. Claims 12, 13, 17, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kulas (US 6,809,704 B2; Oct. 26, 2004)
and Dietz (US 2010/0039515 Al; Feb. 18, 2010). Final Act. 12-15.
3. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kulas, Dietz, and Yamamoto (US 6,3 77 ,2 77 B 1; Apr. 23,
2002). Final Act. 15-16.
4. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kulas, Dietz, and Harris et al. (US 2006/0127880 Al;
June 15, 2006) ("Harris"). Final Act. 16-17.
5. Claims 16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kulas, Dietz, and Takatsuka et al. (US
2009/0295832 Al; Dec. 3, 2009) ("Takatsuka"). Final Act. 17-21.
6. Claims 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kulas, Dietz, and Yamada et al. (US 7 ,605,692 B2;
Oct. 20, 2009) ("Yamada"). Final Act. 21-25.
7. Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kulas, Dietz, Yamada, and Takatsuka. Final Act. 25-28.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the limitation "identifying a
portion of the scene which, absent the obstruction and the display, would be
3
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
visible from the at least one vantage point through the outer perimeter of the
display," as recited in claim 21, is indefinite?
2. Did the Examiner err in relying on the proposed combinations
of either Kulas and Dietz or Kulas, Dietz, and Yamada in rejecting, inter
alia, claims 12, 21, and 28?
ANALYSIS 2
Rejection of claims 21-27 under 35 USC§ 112, second paragraph
Claim 21 recites, inter alia, the limitation "identifying a portion of the
scene which, absent the obstruction and the display, would be visible from
the at least one vantage point through the outer perimeter of the display."
The Examiner finds this to be indefinite because "[i]t is unclear how the at
least vantage point can be through the outer perimeter of the display if the
display is absent. Further, it is unclear what is meant by a vantage point of
an operator being through an outer perimeter of the display." Final Act. 2-
3. The Examiner further finds a lack of clarity regarding the relationship
between the outer perimeter of the display and the visible portion of the
scene, as claimed. Ans. 3.
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed June
17, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed November 13, 2013 ("Reply.
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on September 13, 2013 ("Ans."); and
the Final Office Action mailed on January 17, 2013, from which this Appeal
is taken ("Final Act.").
4
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
We disagree with the Examiner's findings. Figure 4 is illustrative and
is reproduced below.
3
120 WO
Figure 4
4
\
\
110
Figure 4 illustrates an example of Appellants' claimed enhanced visibility
system. Spec. i-f 11. As disclosed in the Specification, the identified portion
(111) of the scene (110) may be determined by extending a plurality of rays
(114) from the vantage point (100) through the outer perimeter (109) of
display (108). Spec. i-f 22. We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand what is being claimed when the claim is
5
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
read in light of the Specification. Reply Br. 2. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph of
claims 21-27 as being indefinite.
Rejections under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in relying on the combination
of Kulas and Dietz in rejecting independent claim 12. App. Br. 7-9. In
particular, Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill in the art "would not
be motivated to combine Kulas with Dietz because to do so would be
impractical and unworkable." App. Br. 7. Appellants assert that Kulas
teaches a display is mounted to the obscuring surface and the obscuring
surface in Dietz is backseat (blocking the operator's view of a trailer hitch).
App. Br. 8. Thus, Appellants conclude the combined teachings of Kulas and
Dietz require that a display be mounted on the backseat of the vehicle and
that such an arrangement is impractical, inconvenient, and uncomfortable.
App. Br. 8. Additionally, Appellants argue that such an obstruction (i.e., the
backseat) is not "positioned outward of the operator station," as recited in
dependent claim 28, but is within the operator area of Kulas' vehicle. App.
Br. 9-10. Appellants further argue the camera systems of Kulas and Dietz
are incompatible. App. Br. 8-9.
In response to Appellants' assertions that the obstructing surface is the
backseat, the Examiner explains the obstructing surface in Dietz would be
the tailgate of the truck bed, which Examiner notes is outside the operator
status (as further required in claim 28). Ans. 5-9. In addition, the Examiner
notes that "[t]he claim language does not limit the scope of the display
screen to be inside of the vehicle" and that one of ordinary skill in the art
6
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
would recognize displays may be made to be weather-resistant and
withstand extreme conditions. Ans. 9. Accordingly, the Examiner
determines the combined teachings of Kulas and Dietz would not be
impractical or unworkable. Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner's conclusions. As an initial matter, we
note our reviewing court has recognized that a given course of action often
has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not
necessarily obviate any or all reasons to combine teachings. See Winner
Int'! Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The
fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit,
however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one
reference with the teachings of another."). Thus, we find Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner's proposed combination of references would
result in a display in an inconvenient position or subject to harsh conditions
(see App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 3-8) and, therefore, an ordinarily skilled
artisan would not be motivated to combine the teachings from the cited
references to be unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Further, "it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review." In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). "Combining
the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCP A 1973).
Further, "a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
7
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
an automaton." KSR Int? Co. v. Telejlex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); see
also In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (an artisan must be
presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references
disclose).
Thus, we reject Appellants' argument of a limited-and overly
rigid---combination of Kulas' placement of a display on an obstructing
surface with the obstructing surface (i.e., tailgate) of Dietz as representative
of the combined teachings of the cited references. Rather, Kulas generally
teaches a system to "reduce[] blind spots" using a combination of camera(s)
and display( s ), wherein the cameras are directed to capture images that
would otherwise be obstructed by the blind spot(s). Kulas, col. 1, 11. 19--25.
Dietz generally teaches presenting to a driver, via a display, images captured
from a camera positioned on an object (i.e., trailer hitch) that would
otherwise be obstructed from the driver's vantage point. Dietz i-fi-141--42.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550
U.S. at 416. Thus, we find the placement and location of the display(s) and
camera( s) in the combined teachings of the cited references is a design
choice within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965) (minor differences between the
prior art and a claimed device may be a matter of design choice absent
evidence to the contrary). See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 ("Common sense
teaches [] that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.").
8
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the claimed invention to utilize the camera for
providing a view of a work tool in the system/method of Kulas
as suggested by Dietz in order to expand the functionality and
uses of the system. One would be motivated to combine these
teachings because it would allow the operator of the vehicle to
efficiently and precisely maneuver the tool by offering an
unobstructed view.
Final Act. 14 (emphasis added).
Appellants advance similar arguments regarding the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 21. See App. Br. 10-12 (asserting a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Kulas, Dietz,
and Yamada because it would be impractical and unworkable and that a
display located on the identified locations of Yamada would be subjected to
harsh conditions). For similar reasons, we do not find Appellants'
arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner;s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 12, 21, and 28, as well as the rejections
of claims 13-20 and 22-27, which were not argued separately.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 21-28 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 12-28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
9
Appeal2014-001486
Application 12/465, 126
AFFIRMED
10