Ex Parte MüllerDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 26, 201914379593 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/379,593 08/19/2014 23122 7590 RATNERPRESTIA 2200 Renaissance Blvd Suite 350 King of Prussia, PA 19406 06/28/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gerhard Muller 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. l 800P82372WOUS 7704 EXAMINER HODGES, SUSAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2489 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2019 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): PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERHARD MULLER 1 Appeal2018-008754 Application 14/379,593 Technology Center 2400 Before JON M. JURGOVAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-13, all the pending claims in the present application (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1Appellant identifies Conti Temic microelectronic GmbH as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). 1 Appeal2018-008754 Application 14/379,593 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention generally relates to a method for aligning two image recording elements of a stereo camera system. See Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for aligning at least two image recording elements of two camera modules of a stereo camera system, compnsmg: arranging the image recording elements on mounting plates of the camera modules with a surface of each image recording element facing a surface of the respective mounting plate, the surface of the respective mounting plate bounded on one or more sides by at least one outer reference edge, wherein the image recording elements are each aligned with the respective at least one outer reference edge of the respective mounting plates; arranging the camera modules within the stereo camera system, wherein the outer reference edges of the mounting plates are positioned in direct contact with a common reference edge of an auxiliary device or against multiple reference edges of the auxiliary device that are aligned with one another, the mounting plates formed separately from the auxiliary device; and removing the auxiliary device after completing the arrangement of the camera modules within the stereo camera system. REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 2 Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohsumi et al. (US 2008/0001727 Al, 2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Adv. Act. 2. 2 Appeal2018-008754 Application 14/379,593 publ. Jan. 3, 2008), Nobis et al. (US 2011/0050855 Al, publ. March 3, 2011), and Sewell (US 2012/0081550 Al, publ. April 5, 2012). Final Act. 6. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohsumi, Nobis, Sewell, and Weber et al. (US 2011/0255000 Al, publ. Oct. 20, 2011). Id. at 12. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Appellant contends, "Sewell does not disclose, teach, or suggest ... removing a separate auxiliary device." App. Br. 7. Appellant argues, "the Examiner bases the rejection on a statement in Sewell that the term 'coupled' may refer to connections which are permanent or removable in nature." Id. "Notably," Appellant contends, "the Examiner does not argue that Sewell discloses or teaches a separate auxiliary device which is removed after alignment of image recording elements is complete." Id. As noted by Appellant, the Examiner finds that Sewell discloses the disputed limitation because Sewell teaches that "the term 'coupled' means the joining of two components ( electrical, mechanical, or magnetic) directly or indirectly to one another. Such joining may be permanent in nature or alternatively may be removable or releasable in nature)." Final Act. 8-9 (citing Sewell ,-J 42); Ans. 6-7. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest "removing the auxiliary device after completing the arrangement of the camera modules within the stereo camera system." 3 Appeal2018-008754 Application 14/379,593 See App. Br. 7. In particular, the Examiner's findings fail to explain how Sewell's teaching that coupled connections are "removable" teaches or suggests "removing the auxiliary device after completing the arrangement of the camera modules within the stereo camera system." We note the Examiner has not relied on any of the other cited references to teach this element. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-7. In contrast, independent claim 10 recites broader language than claim 1, namely, "the auxiliary device ... removable from the stereo camera system." (Emphasis added.) Unlike claim l's narrower recitation of "removing the auxiliary device after completing the arrangement of the camera modules within the stereo camera system," claim 10' s auxiliary device is merely removable. Appellant does not provide separate arguments for the patentability of claim 10, relying instead on claim 10' s similarity with claim 1. See id. at 8. As we explained above, the Examiner finds that Sewell teaches, "the term 'coupled' means the joining of two components .. . [which] may be removable." Final Act. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Sewell ,-J 42); see also id. at 11 (rejecting claim 10 "for the same reasons" as claim 1). Elsewhere, Sewell discloses a "circuit board 120 may be ... coupled to the first frame member 131 and/ or second frame member 13 2" of" [ t ]he camera system 110." Sewell ,-J 23 (emphasis added). Therefore, Sewell teaches or suggests that the frame members coupled to the circuit board may be removable. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claim 10. Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 11-13, 4 Appeal2018-008754 Application 14/379,593 so we also sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 11-13 for the reasons stated with respect to claim 10. See App. Br. 8. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7. We affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 10-13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation