Ex Parte Lewis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13537611 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/537,611 06/29/2012
26096 7590 09/02/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P,C
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jimmie L. Lewis
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.
60121-021 PUS4 4120
EXAMINER
RAKOWSKI, CARA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIMMIE L. LEWIS
Appeal2015-003244
Application 13/537,611
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant, Jimmie L. Lewis, appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14, 15, 19-22, 24, and 25.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec."); Final Office Action ("Final Act.");
Examiner's Answer ("Ans."); and Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.")
and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.").
2 Claims 16-18 and 23 stand allowed. Ans. 5.
Appeal2015-003244
Application 13/537,611
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal regards an exterior rearview mirror
which can be extended from a normal viewing position to an outboard
position. Spec. 1. Claim 14, the sole independent claim on appeal, is
reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
14. An extendable rearview mirror assembly for a vehicle
compnsmg:
a mirror housing for attachment to a vehicle;
a mirror frame disposed within the mirror housing in an
inboard position and slidably movable from the inboard
position to an outboard position relative to the mirror housing;
a first mirror disposed in the mirror frame;
a second mirror disposed in the mirror housing and
concealed behind the first mirror in the inboard position and
exposed in the outboard position for providing improved lateral
rearward viewing to an operator of the vehicle; and
a detent mechanism to retain the first mirror in the
inboard position.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintained the following grounds of rejection: 3
I. Claims 14, 15, 19, 20, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hou4 and Whitehead. 5
II. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hou, Whitehead, and Gemdt. 6
3 Ans. 2; Final Act. 2--4.
4 US 4,921,337, issued May 1, 1990 ("Hou").
5 US 5,969,890, issued Oct. 19, 1999 ("Whitehead").
6 US 5,639,054, issued Jun. 17, 1997 ("Gemdt").
2
Appeal2015-003244
Application 13/537,611
DISCUSSION
I
With regard to Rejection I, the Examiner found that Hou discloses a
rearview mirror housing in which one of two mirrors within the housing is
extendable from an inboard to an outboard position for providing an operator
with improved rearward viewing. Final Act. 2. Acknowledging that Hou
does not provide a detent mechanism to retain the extendable mirror in the
inboard position, the Examiner relied on Whitehead in reaching a
determination that it would have been obvious to supplement Hou' s mirror
with such a detent "to positively lock the [ extendable] first mirror in the
inboard position and minimize the impact of vibration on the mirror
assembly." Id. at 3.
As Appellant correctly points out, App. Br. 3, Hou's extendable
mirror is moved between the inboard and outboard positions by an attached
"nut,'' which in tum is "driven to rotate by a motor," thereby selectively
moving the mirror in a forward or reverse direction between limit switches
which serve as "auto stop controls," Hou col. 2, 11. 13-24. Appellant argues
that there would be "no benefit to employing a detent mechanism" in Hou
because Hou' s extendable mirror already is locked in position when the
screw is not driven, such as when a limit switch is actuated. App. Br. 3.
The Examiner responded that Whitehead teaches "two additional
functions" provided by a detent mechanism: to "positively lock the first
mirror in the inboard position and minimize the impact of vibration on the
mirror assembly." Final Act. 5. Regarding the former, the Examiner
reasoned that "[t]he existence of an electrical switch and a drive nut [in Hou]
do not by themselves fully prevent movement of the mirrors under a variety
3
Appeal2015-003244
Application 13/537,611
of conditions experienced by a vehicle, including moving under speed or in
the case of an accident." Id. at 4. However, the Examiner did not identify
any evidence or present technical reasoning to substantiate that conclusion.
Regarding the latter, the Examiner generally cited Whitehead at column 7,
line 57, through column 8, line 48. Id. at 3. There, Whitehead teaches that
"when extended, the contoured surfaces of housing 132 and arm members
124 and 126 in combination with the positive locking feature of the
engaging members and recesses minimize the impact on the exterior mirror
assembly's vibration." Whitehead col. 8, 11. 15-19. The Examiner did not
articulate a basis for finding that Hou's mirror, when extended, would be
prone to vibration, or that adopting Whitehead's detent mechanism would
offer any vibration resistance beyond what already would be exhibited due
to Hou's mirror being positively engaged with a fixed nut and electric drive
motor. Even if a detent might aid in reducing vibration in an extended
mirror position, as in Whitehead, that alone would not provide a reason why
one skilled in the art would incorporate a detent mechanism "to retain the
first mirror in the inboard position," as is recited in claim 14. (Emphasis
added).
We consider the above-discussed issue to be a close case. However,
in light of the record before us and for the foregoing reasons, we find that
the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to provide
Hou's mirror assembly with a detent mechanism is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection I.
4
Appeal2015-003244
Application 13/537,611
II
Because Rejection II is principally based on the same findings and
determinations underlying Rejection I, we do not sustain Rejection II for the
reasons set forth above in connection with Rejection I.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14, 15, 19-22, 24, and 25 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5