Ex Parte Krispin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

15113831 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
15/113,831
24505 7590
Daniel J. Swirsky
11 Reuven Street
FILING DATE
07/24/2016
01/31/2019
Beit Shemesh, 9954419
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yeshaya Krispin
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.
2640-US 1075
EXAMINER
TRAN, THANG DUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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 YESHA YA KRISPIN
Appeal 2018-003 681
Application 15/113,831
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 18-3 7. See Br. 1, 9. 2 Claims 1-17 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Roadwarez Inc. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act."),
mailed July 3, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("Br."), filed November 3, 2017; and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed November 24, 2017.
Appeal 2018-003 681
Application 15/113,831
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is a signaling system designed to be worn by
users of open vehicles. Spec. 1 :2--4. One embodiment is a vest with a
display on the back. Id. at 1 :6-8. The vest uses GPS data and a motion
sensor's output to automatically control a tum signal. See, e.g., id. at 8: 12-
18. For example, indicators display a tum signal when the motion sensor
detects a vehicle tum and the GPS data indicates a tum should be present at
that location (e.g., following a road's topography). Id. at 8:8-10. According
to the Specification, the invention displays a signal faster and more
accurately than using either motion-sensor output or GPS data alone.
Id. at 8:12-18.
Claims 18 and 30 are independent and reproduced below:
18. A signaling system, comprising a vest having a rear-
facing display and a controller, the vest being configured to
communicate with the controller for operating the display,
wherein the controller is configured to operate the display based
at least on data from a GPS module and one or more motion
sensors.
30. A method of displaying a tum signal, the method
compnsmg:
• providing a signaling system having a vest with a rear-facing
display a controller, and one or more motion sensors;
• acquiring, by said controller, GPS data from a GPS module;
• determining, based on said GPS data and outputs of said
motion sensors, that a tum signal should be displayed; and
• operating said display to indicate an appropriate tum signal.
2
Appeal 2018-003 681
Application 15/113,831
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Fuentes
Sambongi
Boatright et al.
Langlois et al.
US 2003/0213045 Al
US 2012/0053889 Al
US 2012/0310465 Al
US 2014/0280580 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Nov. 20, 2003
Mar. 1, 2012
Dec. 6, 2012
Sept. 18, 2014
Claims 18, 19, 24, 27, 30, 31, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( a)( 1) as anticipated by Fuentes. Final Act. 2---6.
Claims 20 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fuentes and Sambongi. Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 21-23, 25, 26, and 33-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Fuentes and Langlois. Final Act. 8-11.
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fuentes, Langlois, and Boatright. Final Act. 11-12.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 18, 19, AND 24
The Examiner's Findings
In rejecting claim 18 as anticipated by Fuentes, the Examiner finds
that Fuentes discloses a garment with a rear display controlled by sensors,
including a GPS module and an inertial sensor. Final Act. 3 ( citing Fuentes
,r,r 25, 37, 42, 39). According to the Examiner, Fuentes's circuit 40a, 40b,
and 40c operates the display. Id. ( citing Fuentes Fig. 1 ).
Appellant's Contentions
First, Appellant argues that Fuentes teaches a variety of sensors but
does not teach a motion sensor. Br. 6. Second, Appellant argues that
3
Appeal 2018-003 681
Application 15/113,831
Fuentes's display is not operated automatically by a controller or a controller
that receives data directly from a GPS module and motion sensor. Id. at 7.
According to Appellant, Fuentes uses GPS data to make the user aware of
their location or for networking a team of users, not to select display signals.
Id.
Issue
Under§ 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Fuentes discloses
"wherein the controller is configured to operate the display based at least on
data from a GPS module and one or more motion sensors," in the rejection
of claim 18?
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner that Fuentes discloses a motion sensor.
Ans. 3.
In particular, Fuentes discloses an inertial sensor. Fuentes ,r 39,
quoted in Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Fuentes uses the inertial
sensor to sense movement. Ans. 3. According to Fuentes, the inertial sensor
enhances the wearer's safety and visibility, among other things.
Fuentes ,r 39. The inertial sensor is contained in flexible illuminated display
pad 23. Id. ,r 39. Pad 23 is secured to garment 10, which can be a vest.
Id. ,r 37. Garment 10 can be worn by a motorcycle rider. Id.
In this use, garment 10 can "indicate the wearer's intentions" visually.
Id. ,r 64. For example, the garment "lights up when a wearer makes a
specific move." Id. ,r 32. To create an illuminated pattern, such as a "left-
turn indicator," circuitry 40a, 40b, and 40c drive garment lO's display.
Id. ,r,r 37-38. On this record, the weight of the evidence favors the
Examiner's finding that Fuentes discloses a motion sensor (i.e., the inertial
4
Appeal 2018-003 681
Application 15/113,831
sensor) and a controller (i.e., circuitry 40a, 40b, and 40c) that operates a
display based on the motion-sensor data. Final Act. 3.
We note that claim 18 recites that the operation is "based at least on
data from a GPS module and one or more motion sensors" but does not
require using both GPS and motion-sensor data simultaneously and together.
Although Appellant discloses an embodiment that uses both (see, e.g.,
Spec. 8: 12-18), the Specification contemplates other embodiments falling
within the scope of the claims (see, e.g., Spec. 14:12-25). Thus, a broad, but
reasonable, interpretation of claim 18 covers a vest like Fuentes's, which
uses different types of data for visible signaling. See, e.g., Fuentes ,r 39
(disclosing that the vest receives GPS data and contains inertial sensors).
Given this understanding of the claim, we are unpersuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that Fuentes discloses a controller configured to
operate the display based on GPS data and a motion sensor. Final Act. 3.
Specifically, flexible illuminated display pad 23 can receive GPS positioning
signals. Fuentes ,r 39. According to Fuentes, the GPS data is used for
"communications, control, signaling and networking purposes." Id.
( emphasis added).
That is, Fuentes uses location data for more than making the user
aware of location for networking a team, as Appellant argues. Br. 6-7. For
example, Fuentes discloses that the invention can perform "location based
marketing," where "highly visible signaling and interaction are coupled with
corporate logos or messages." Fuentes ,r 70 (emphasis added). And as
discussed above, circuitry 40a, 40b, and 40c create the signals by driving
garment lO's display. Id. ,r,r 37-38. Thus, the weight of the evidence favors
the Examiner's finding that Fuentes's controller (i.e., circuitry 40a, 40b, and
5
Appeal 2018-003 681
Application 15/113,831
40c) is configured to operate the display based on data from a GPS module.
Final Act. 3.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 18 and
dependent claims 19 and 24, which are not separately argued. Br. 6-7.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 27, 30, 31, AND 37
Claim 30 recites, in part, "determining, based on said GPS data and
outputs of said motion sensors, that a tum signal should be displayed."
Claim 27 recites a similar limitation.
In rejecting claims 27 and 30 as anticipated by Fuentes, the Examiner
finds that Fuentes determines that a tum signal should be displayed based on
GPS data and the motion sensor's outputs. Final Act. 5 ( citing
Fuentes ,r 32).
Appellant argues that the relied-upon embodiment displays data in
response to user input, not GPS data. Br. 8.
Fuentes activates tum signals in response to "a specific move."
Fuentes ,r 32. Although the GPS data may activate the display in other
ways, the Examiner has not shown that Fuentes's tum signals are activated
by GPS data. Final Act. 5 (citing Fuentes ,r 32). Here, the Examiner has not
explained why Fuentes would need both GPS in addition to motion-sensor
data to sense Fuentes's "specific move." Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 27
and 30. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims
31 and 37, which depend from claim 30.
6
Appeal 2018-003 681
Application 15/113,831
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 depend from claim 18. The
Examiner rejects claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 under Fuentes and various
combinations of Sambongi, Langlois, and Boatright. Final Act. 7-12. In
arguing for the patentability of claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29, Appellant
refers to the arguments presented for independent claim 18. Br. 8-9.
Notably, Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's findings regarding
Boatwright's teachings concerning the tum-signal limitations.
See Final Act. 12; Br. 9. Thus, for the reasons discussed in connection with
claim 18, we also sustain the rejections of claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29.
Claims 32-36 depend from claim 30. The Examiner rejects claims
32-36 as being obvious over combinations of Fuentes with Samongi and
Langlois. Final Act. 6-11. Because the Examiner did not rely on the
additional references to teach the limitation missing from Fuentes, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 32-36 for the same reasons discussed above
in connection with claim 30. See App. Br. 8-9.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 18, 19, and
24, and the obviousness rejections of claim 20 over Fuentes and Sambongi,
of claims 21-23, 25, and 26 over Fuentes and Langlois, and of claims 28 and
29 over Fuentes, Langlois, and Boatright.
We do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejections of claims 27,
30, 31, and 37, and the obviousness rejections of claim 32 over Fuentes and
Sambongi, and of claims 33-36 over Fuentes and Langlois.
7
Appeal 2018-003 681
Application 15/113,831
DECISION
We affirm-in-part the Examiner's decision to reject claims 18-37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8