Ex Parte Jaipaul

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2016

13210521 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/210,521 08/16/2011
26912 7590 02/02/2016
GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP
SUITE 1600, 1 FIRST CANADIAN PLACE
100 KING STREET WEST
TORONTO, ON MSX IGS
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joshua Timothy Jaipaul
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.
T8474372US 1 2315
EXAMINER
SHERWIN,RYANW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2016 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 JOSHUA TIMOTHY JAIP AUL
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention "is directed to ... monitoring
intersections adjacent to an obstruction that can inhibit a driver's view of
oncoming traffic" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAHvI
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for monitoring traffic at an intersection of a first street
and a second street, the system comprising:
a camera configured to capture data representing a view of the second
street; and, a display screen in communication with the camera for receiving
the data, the display screen configured to display the data to drivers on the
first street; wherein the camera is mounted adjacent the second street and is
directed away from the intersection toward oncoming traffic on the second
street; wherein the display screen is mounted adjacent the first street and is
directed away from the intersection toward oncoming traffic on the first
street; and, wherein the view of the second street is at least partially
obstructed to the drivers on the first street.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Bloomfield et al. US 6,411,204 B 1 June 25, 2002
(hereinafter "Bloomfield")
Laird et al. US 2004/0054513 Al Mar. 18, 2004
(hereinafter "Laird")
Okunuga US 7,057,531 Bl June 6, 2006
Chiu US 2011/0221615 Al Sept. 15, 2011
Hot US 2012/0089445 Al Apr. 12, 2012
Kawai et al. US 8,169,339 B2 May 1, 2012
(hereinafter "Kawai")
Hisaharu JP 02-329291 A Nov. 15, 2002
Claims 1, 3-5, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hisaharu, Laird, and Kawai.
Claims 2, 6, 14--16, and 19 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hisaharu, Laird, Kawai, and Hot.
2
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
Claims 7-9, 12, 20, 21, and 24 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hisaharu, Laird, Kawai, Okunuga, and Chiu.
Claims 10, 11, and 23 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hisaharu, Laird, Kawai, Chiu, and Hot.
Claim 22 stands rejected under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hisaharu, Okunuga, Chiu, and Bloomfield.
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding the combination of Hisaharu, Laird and Kawai teaches or would
have suggested a "camera" that is "mounted adjacent the second street and is
directed away from the intersection toward oncoming traffic on the second
street"; and a "display screen" that is "mounted adjacent the first street and
is directed away from the intersection toward oncoming traffic on the first
street"; wherein "the view of the second street is at least partially obstructed
to the drivers on the first street" (claim 1 ).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Hisaharu
1. Hisaharu discloses a system for monitoring intersections, wherein
Figures 1-2 are reproduced below:
3
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
Figures 1-2 show camera 1 mounted adjacent a street and provides a
bird-eye view directed toward oncoming traffic of the street (car C 1) and an
intersecting street (car C2), and display screens 6 mounted on comers
adjacent each of the streets and are directed toward oncoming traffic of the
streets (cars Cl and C2).
Laird
2. Laird discloses a traffic light violation prediction and recording
system (Abst.), comprising a camera that shows the vehicle before and after
it crosses the stop line for its respective lane (i-f 50), wherein the camera
"may further be placed in any positions which permit capturing ... the front
of the violating vehicle ... " (i-f 52).
Kawai
3. Kawai discloses monitoring intersections, wherein areas that are
hard for a driver of the vehicle to see such as an intersection or blind comer
are imaged with a video camera (col. 1, 11, 22-24). Figure 14 is reproduced
below:
4
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
Figure 14 shows an image displayed showing the right-tum direction
of a vehicle for avoiding head-to-head collision when the vehicle enters a
road with great traffic (col. 9, 11. 58---65).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Hisaharu' s camera "has a fisheye lens so that it
can capture the image of the 'whole crossing' K within a circular monitored
range M" whereas "the lens 102 of the camera 104 [of the claimed
invention] is directed toward oncoming traffic on one street 204 only" (Br.
17). Further, according to Appellant, Hisaharu's display "is directed toward
the crossing K such that it is visible to the driver of a vehicle C on the
opposite side of the crossing K" (Br. 18).
Appellant also contends "Laird show that the cameras 16, 18, 20, and
22 are directed toward the intersection" (Br. 20), and that Kawai's cameras
"are presented on an in-vehicle device 20 mounted within the vehicle"
instead of on a display screen "mounted external to the vehicle on the street"
as in Appellant's invention (Br. 22). Appellant then contends "the Hisaharu
and Laird references are vague or suggest many possible choices with little
5
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
guidance toward the claimed invention with respect to display and camera
positioning" wherein it would not be obvious to try (Br. 23).
We consider all of Appellant's arguments and evidence presented, and
disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of
the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments
made in Appellant's Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments below:
Hisaharu discloses a camera mounted adjacent a street and provides a
view including the view directed toward oncoming traffic of the street and a
display screen that is mounted adjacent an intersecting street and is directed
toward oncoming traffic on that street (FF 1 ). As the Examiner finds,
"Hisaharu teaches mounting a camera at a street comer" and, thus, "teaches
mounting a camera adjacent the second street because an object mounted at
a street comer is interpreted to be adjacent to both first and second streets
intersecting at the comer" (Ans. 11 ).
Although Appellant contends Hisaharu's camera "can capture an
image of the 'whole crossing' K within a circular monitored range M"
whereas "the lens 102 of the camera 104 [of the claimed invention] is
directed toward oncoming traffic on one street 204 only" (Br. 1 7), such
contention is not commensurate in scope with the contested language of the
claim. In particular, claim 1 does not require that the camera is directed
"only" toward one street and, thus, does not preclude a camera that is
directed at the incoming street as well as the intersecting street.
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Hisaharu for
6
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
teaching and suggesting a "camera" that is mounted "adjacent" to a second
street and directed "toward oncoming traffic" on the second street, and a
"display screen" that is mounted "adjacent" a first street and is directed
"toward oncoming traffic" on the first street (claim 1 ).
Although Appellant contends Hisaharu's camera is directed toward
the crossing instead of away from the crossing (Br. 17-18), as the Examiner
points out, Hisaharu is not relied upon for such teaching/suggestion (Ans.
11 ). That is, because the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over
Hisaharu in view of Laird and Kawai, the test for obviousness is not what
Hisaharu, Laird or Kawai must individually disclose, but what the
combination would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Laird discloses that cameras
may be placed in any position which permits capturing of various scenarios
"including the front of the vehicle" (Ans. 12; FF 2), wherein it would have
been obvious to modify Hisaharu with Laird "to direct the camera away
from the intersection toward oncoming traffic ... in order to minimize the
chance of objects disrupting the view of the vehicle from the camera
position" (Ans. 12-13).
Furthermore, we find no error with the Examiner's finding that
Hisaharu teaches and suggests mounting the displays "at any location
recognized by a driver" wherein one of ordinary skill in the art "would have
recognized mounting the displays ... 'away from the intersection toward
oncoming traffic ... ' because a small display with text and picture requires
7
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
clear visibility by the driver to increase the likelihood of properly conveying
a message to a driver for increased safety" (Ans. 12).
As to Appellant's contention Kawai's cameras "are presented on an
in-vehicle device 20 mounted within the vehicle" instead of on a display
screen "mounted external to the vehicle on the street" as in Appellant's
invention (Br. 22), as the Examiner also points out, "Kawai is not relied
upon for teaching a location of a display" (Ans. 13). Rather, we agree with
the Examiner's reliance on Kawai' s disclosure of monitoring intersections
by imaging intersections and blind comers for vehicles entering an
intersection (FF 3) for teaching and suggesting providing a "view of the
second street [that] is at least partially obstructed to the drivers on the first
street" (claim 1).
The Supreme Court guides that the conclusion of obviousness can be
based on the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant has not presented persuasive evidence or argument that providing
the camera and display screen on the side of the intersection closest to the
oncoming traffic instead of the opposite side would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). The skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
We do not find Appellant's contention that "the Hisaharu and Laird
references are vague or suggest many possible choices with little guidance
toward the claimed invention with respect to display and camera
positioning" wherein it would not be obvious to try (Br. 23) persuasive. As
8
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
explained by the Examiner, "because the fact that the camera and display
must be mounted somewhere inherently defines a finite number of potential
solutions" wherein Laird discloses that "the camera is located anywhere to
permit capturing various images" support the conclusion that it would have
been obvious "to try locating the camera and display in the claimed
positions" (Ans. 14). That is, we agree that it would have been obvious to
provide the camera closer to the oncoming traffic to capture vehicle image
without obstruction (Ans. 12-13) and to provide the display closer to the
oncoming traffic for better viewing by the driver (Ans. 12), wherein such a
substitution/design choice would have been well within the skill of the art.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Rather, we find Appellant's invention is simply a modification of
familiar prior art practices or acts (as taught or suggested by the cited
combination of references) that would have realized a predictable result.
That is, minor differences (i.e., where the camera and display are located)
between the prior art and a claimed device may be a matter of design choice
absent evidence to the contrary (see In re Rice, 341F.2d309, 314 (CCPA
1965)).
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 and claims 3-5, 13, and 17 falling therewith (Br. 24) over Hisaharu,
Laird, and Kawai. Appellant does not provide substantive arguments for
claims 2, 6-12, 14--16, and 18-24 (Br. 25-28). Accordingly, we also affirm
the Examiner's rejections of: claims 2, 6, 14--16, and 19 over Hisaharu,
Laird, and Kawai, in further view of Hot; claims 7-9, 12, 20, 21, and 24 over
Hisaharu, Laird, and Kawai, in further view of Okunuga and Chiu; of claims
9
Appeal2014-004295
Application 13/210,521
l 0, 11, and 23 over Hisaharu, Laird, and Kawai, in further view of Chiu and
Hot; and claim 22 over Hisaharu, Okunuga, Chiu, and Bloomfield.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 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).
AFFIRMED
10