Ex Parte Lang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

13951458 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017)

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.
WBF-023 3953
EXAMINER
RETALLICK, KAITLIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/951,458 07/26/2013
47713 7590 11/29/2017
IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS
P.O. BOX 607
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Werner Lang
11/29/2017 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 MEKRA LANG GMBH & CO. KG
Appeal 2017-004102
Application 13/951,458
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, BETH Z. SHAW, and
AARON W. MOORE Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 20-41, which represent all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed Sept.
12, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief filed January 5, 2017 (“Reply Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 9, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Final
Rejection mailed April 14, 2016 (“Final Act.”).
2 The real party in interest is Mekra Lang GmbH & Co. KG. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-004102
Application 13/951,458
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to an external camera device for
vehicles. Spec. 12.
Claim 20 is illustrative and reproduced below.
20. A device comprising:
a camera holder attached to an outer surface of a motor vehicle;
camera optics disposed in the camera holder outside the motor
vehicle;
an optical window in the camera holder disposed adjacent to the
camera optics; and
a flow channel through the camera holder that guides an air stream,
wherein the flow channel includes an inlet and an outlet, wherein the
inlet of the flow channel is connected to a ventilation system inside the
motor vehicle, and wherein the flow channel is thermally coupled to the
camera optics.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 20, 23, 25, 29, 313, 35, and 37 as
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Cortes (US 5,760,828).
The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cortes and Kakinami et al. (US 5,096,287; Mar. 17,
1992).
The Examiner rejected claim 24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cortes and MacDougall (US 2006/0132940 Al; June 22,
2006).
The Examiner rejected claims 26—28 and 32 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cortes and Mills (US 3,859,899; Jan. 14, 1975).
The Examiner rejected claims 30 and 39 as unpatentable under
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 31 in the Answer. Ans. 15.
2
Appeal 2017-004102
Application 13/951,458
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cortes and Gebhard (WIPO Pub. WO 83/04225;
Dec. 8, 1983).
The Examiner rejected claims 33, 34, and 40 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cortes and Lee (US 2007/0006999 Al; Jan. 11,
2007).
The Examiner rejected claim 36 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cortes and Sharma (US 2010/0202052 Al; Aug. 12, 2010).
The Examiner rejected claim 38 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cortes and Lee (US 2008/0055411 Al; Mar. 6, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claim 41 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cortes, Lee ’999 and Feith et al. (US 2002/0153750 Al; Oct.
24, 2002).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. For the reasons discussed below, we do not sustain the
rejections, based on this record.
Claim 20 recites, in part, “wherein the flow channel is thermally
coupled to the camera optics.” Appellant argues that Cortes fails to teach a
3
Appeal 2017-004102
Application 13/951,458
flow channel thermally coupled to the camera optics in a camera holder, as
recited in claim 20. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds Cortes teaches this element. Ans. 18. Figure 1 of
Cortes is reproduced below.
Figure 1 of Cortes includes a microcamera 6, a glass pane 8, a
window area 11, and a heating tube 19 with an orifice 18. The microcamera
6 is placed inside an assembly formed by external casing 1 and an internal
box 2. Cortes, 3:34—36.
The Examiner finds that heat, which exits orifice 18 and enters the
window area 11, is directed to the glass pane 8. Ans. 18. The Examiner
finds that the glass pane 8 is part of the camera optics of the microcamera 6.
Id. at 18—19 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner concludes, the heat
4
Appeal 2017-004102
Application 13/951,458
exiting the heating tube 19 (i.e., the flow channel) is thermally coupled to
the microcamera 6 in the housing. Id.
The Examiner’s finding that Cortes’s glass pane is part of the camera
optics of the microcamera is not supported by evidence. We agree with
Appellant that Cortes’s glass pane 8 is not part of the camera optics of
microcamera 6. Reply Br. 7. Cortes’s glass pane 8 is glass that closes the
external casing 1 and separates the microcamera 6 from the air coming out
of heating tube 19. Cortes describes the glass pane as “heat-shielded” and
“insulating with respect to the outside temperature.” Cortes, 3:15—19. The
Examiner does not point to any portion of Cortes that demonstrates that the
glass pane 8 is part of the camera optics of the microcamera 6. To the
contrary, the Examiner relies on glass pane 8 for disclosing the claimed
optical window, an element recited in addition to the recited camera optics.
Final Act. 3. In this case, it would be improper to use a single
structure/element, i.e., Cortes’s glass pane, to disclose two separate claimed
elements, i.e., both the camera optics and optical window. Therefore, we
agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that the
flow channel (i.e., heating tube 19) in Cortes is “thermally coupled to the
camera optics,” as recited in claim 20.
Thus, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Cortes
discloses the flow channel is thermally coupled to the camera optics.
Therefore, we do not sustain the § 102 rejection of independent claim 20.
The Examiner identified the same cited portions of Cortes as teaching the
same disputed limitation for independent claim 37, and for the remaining
pending dependent claims. Final Act. 5—16. Therefore, for the same
reasons, based on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
5
Appeal 2017-004102
Application 13/951,458
claim 37 or the remaining pending dependent claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20-41 is reversed.
REVERSED
6