Ex Parte Nishigasako et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

12511136 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/511,136 0712912009
70422 7590 04/22/2016
INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RODRIGO K. NISHIGASAKO
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.
P006162-NAPD-JEK
003.0681
CONFIRMATION NO.
3202
EXAMINER
MA, CALVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODRIGO K. NISHIGASAKO, ROGERIO VOLLET, and
JOAO CLAUDIO BRITO SANTOS
Appeal2014-005508
Application 12/511,136
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejections of claims 1-12, 14, and 16-22, which are all the
claims pending in the present patent application. Claims 13 and 15 have
been cancelled. App. Br. 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify GM Global Technology Operations, Inc. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005508
Application 12/511,136
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to heads-up displays for vehicles using
light-emitting diode displays. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A display system for a vehicle comprising a
windshield, the display system comprising:
a substantially transparent organic light-
emitting diode (OLED) display coupled to the
windshield, the OLED display adapted to display
information to an operator of the vehicle;
a control device physically connected to the
OLED display, the control device adapted to
operate the OLED display to present information to
the operator of the vehicle; and
a sensor coupled to the control device, the
sensor adapted to detect a condition of operation of
the vehicle and transmit a signal to the control
device, the signal conveying information regarding
the condition of operation of the vehicle for display
on the OLED display via control by the control
device.
The Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Fein et al. (US 2008/0238723 Al; Oct. 2, 2008) and Naugler Jr.
et al. (US 2005/0200296 Al; Sept. 15, 2005).
Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fein,
Naugler, and Kreiner et al. (US 2007/0103341 Al; May 10, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-005508
Application 12/511,136
Claims 3-5, 14, 16-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Fein, Naugler, and Dunkel (US 2005/0084659 Al; Apr. 21, 2005).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fein, Naugler,
and Tchakarov (US 2009/0153026 Al; June 18, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the rejected dependent claims together with their
respective independent claims. App. Br. 7, 8, and 10. Further, Appellants
advance commensurate arguments for each independent claim. Id. at 4--10.
In light of Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012).
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in combining Fein and Naugler
to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 because:
such a combination ... would render the device of
Fein to be unsuitable for its intended purposes
and/or \vould alter the principle of operation of the
Fein device, for example because the windshield in
Fein would no longer be a safe device and would no
longer comply with applicable laws and regulations
if the circuitry of Naugler were added into the
windshield.
App. Br. 5. Appellants base this contention on assertions that circuitry in
Naugler is not transparent and relates to a touch screen. Id. at 4--5. Further,
Appellants contend "there would be no motivation to combine the references
in the manner suggested by the Examiner" because such a combination
would "make the windshield of Fein into an unsafe and non-compliant
device, as would be the case if the circuitry of Naugler were added into the
windshield of Fein." Id. at 4.
3
Appeal2014-005508
Application 12/511,136
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. First, we do not agree
with Appellants that combining the teachings of Naugler and Fein would
render the device of Fein unsuitable for its intended purposes or otherwise
frustrate its principles of operation. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants'
argument amounts to an assertion that Naugler cannot be bodily
incorporated into Fein. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); accord In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review."). The Examiner's combination of Fein and Naugler does not
propose bodily incorporating the circuitry of Naugler into the windshield of
Fein. Final Act. 3--4. Rather, the Examiner makes specific findings
applying Naugler's teachings of a "directly wiring connection design" to
create a physical connection "between the controller of Fein and the
transparent OLED display system on windshield"-a connection suggested
by at least Fein's disclosure, "[t]he hardware of the system 10 utilizes either
a hardwired relay from a CPU into the dashboard 114." Ans. 4; Fein i-f 27.
Second, we find similarly unpersuasive Appellants' argument that
there would be no motivation to combine the references in the manner
suggested by the Examiner. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4. As discussed above,
the Examiner's combination of Fein and Naugler does not propose bodily
incorporating the circuitry of Naugler into the windshield of Fein. Final Act.
3--4. Appellants' argument to the contrary fails to address the particular
4
Appeal2014-005508
Application 12/511,136
findings of the Examiner in combining specific teachings of Naugler and
Fein. Indeed, Appellants' argument rebutting the Examiner's stated
motivation to combine lacks persuasive evidence that the combination would
have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C § 103(a) rejections
of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, as well as their dependent claims 2-8,
10-12, 14, and 16, and 18-22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-12, 14, and
16-22 as obvious.
AFFIRMED
5