Ex Parte Payne

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 17, 2003

09089153 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 17, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte GEORGE R. PAYNE
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, LEVY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-9, which are all of the claims pending in
this application.
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a vehicle backup monitor
and alarm system. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced
as follows:
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 2
1. A vehicle backup monitoring and alarm system
for assisting a trailer with its associated tractor in
approaching a loading dock in a rearward or backing up
fashion, said system comprising:
a rear detection module located on the rear of the
trailer near the bottom, said rear detection module
contains a small video camera, a laser-based distance
detection system and a pair of high intensity lamps for
increased rearward illumination over that normally
provided by the reverse light provided on the trailer;
a driver’s side detection module mounted on the
trailer approximately one-third of the way back from
the front near the bottom on the driver’s side;
a passenger side detection module mounted in a
manner symmetrical to said driver’s side detection
module on the passenger side of the trailer;
a series of interconnecting cables routed from the
rear detection module, the driver’s side detection
module, and the passenger side dectection module, under
the trailer and up to the tractor, said interconnecting
cables connecting a display monitor located near the
head liner of the tractor in a position easily viewable
by the driver.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Gauthier 5,373,482 Dec. 13, 1994
Schofield et al. 5,670,935 Sep. 23, 1997
(Schofield)
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schofield in view of Gauthier.
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 5,
mailed April 13, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed
January 16, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 14, filed
August 15, 2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part.
We observe at the outset appellant’s statement (brief, page
3): “Claims 1-9 form a single group of claims.” Notwithstanding
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 4
appellant’s assertion, appellant presents separate arguments
(brief, page 9) directed toward dependent claim 2.
Accordingly, as claim 2 has been separately argued, we will
separately consider the patentability of claim 2.
We initially note that the rejection of all of the claims is
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in
evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not
only the specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
A prima facie case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to
be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
having the references before him to make the proposed combination
or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173
USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 5
In making our determination, we have considered the
disclosures of Schofield et al. and Gauthier for what each one
fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, including not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been expected to
draw therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507,
510 (CCPA 1966); In re Preda, 401 f.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968). Additionally, in our evaluation of the
obviousness issues before us, we have presumed skill on the part
of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. See In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1098).
We first turn to independent claim 1. The examiner’s
position (final rejection, pages 5-6) is that Schofield shows all
of the recited features except for a rear detection module that
contains not only a small video camera, but also a laser-based
distance detection system and a pair of high intensity lamps. To
overcome this deficiency in Schofield, the examiner turns to
Gauthier (final rejection, page 6) for the use of a tractor-
trailer backup system that includes back-up lights and a rear
detection module containing a distance detection system.
In response, appellant argues (brief, pages 4-5) that the
examiner has failed to present evidence of motivation to combine
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 6
the references. Specifically, appellant states (id.): “[i]n the
video monitoring system in the Schofield et al. reference, there
is no suggestion or teaching as to the desirability of
incorporating an object distance detection system in order to
enhance the effectiveness of the system as a whole.”
Schofield discloses (col. 7, lines 14-17) that “[e]ach image
capture device could be a combination of different types of
devices, such as one sensitive to visible radiation combined with
one sensitive to infrared radiation.” The reference further
suggests (col. 11, lines 21-28):
In order to determine the distance of objects behind
vehicle 10, a separate distance-measuring system may be
used. Such separate system may include radar,
ultrasonic sensing, infrared detection, and other known
distance-measuring systems. Alternatively,
stereoscopic distance-sensing capabilities of side
image capture devices 14 may be utilized to determine
the separation distance from trailing objects utilizing
known techniques.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by appellant’s argument that
motivation to combine the references is lacking. We find that
Schofield et al. suggests providing the image capture devices
taught in that reference with a combination of video and distance
detection systems, such as those further disclosed by Gauthier.
Appellant also argues (brief, page 6) that in Schofield,
“[t]here is no mention of the placement of the image capture
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 7
devices on a ‘trailer’ as the examiner states” (meaning a
tractor-trailer), and that “[t]his distinction is key to the
patentability of the present invention. . ..” However, appellant
acknowledges (id.) that Schofield teaches the use of its rearview
vision system in conjunction with “a vehicle 10, which may be an
automobile, a light truck, a sport utility vehicle, a van, a bus,
a large truck, or the like” (col. 3, lines 50-52) (emphasis
added).
From the disclosure of Schofield, we find that the reference
discloses providing a large truck or the like, with a rearview
vision system reads on the claimed “trailer with its associated
tractor.” Furthermore, assuming arguendo that Schofield does not
disclose a tractor-trailer, an artisan would have been motivated
to apply Schofield's sysyem to a tractor-trailer as taught by
Gauthier.
It is further argued (brief, page 7) that in the present
invention, the detection modules "are located only on the trailer
of a semi-tractor/trailer combination," and (brief, page 6) that
in Schofield, the image capture devices were meant to be located
forward on the body of the vehicle. From our review of claim 1,
we find that the claim recites “a driver's side detection module
mounted on the trailer approximately one-third of the way back
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 8
from the front near the bottom of the driver's side." In
Gauthier, figure 2 discloses transceivers 60 mounted on the side
of the trailer of the tractor-trailer. The left-most transceiver
60 is located approximately one-third of the way back from the
front of the tractor-trailer. We note that claim 1, as broadly
drafted, does not require the detector be approximately one-third
of the way back from the front of the trailer, but reads on the
detector being approximately one-third of the way back from the
front of the tractor trailer. From the dioslosure of Gauthier,
we find that an artisan would have been motivated to locate the
detectors of Schofield in the location disclosed by Gauthier, in
view of Gauthier's disclosed placement on a tractor-trailer. In
addition, we note that Schofield does not seem to disclose that
the rear detection module includes a laser-based distance
detection system. Neither does Gauthier. However, the appellant
does not argue this as a difference and thus it will be assumed
that limitation is met or made obvious to one skilled in the art
by Schofield and Gauthier. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952
F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not
the function of this court to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 9
distinctions over the prior art."); In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019,
1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA 1979) (arguments must first be
presented to the Board).
Appellant further argues (brief, page 8) that the claimed
distance detection system is not disclosed by Gauthier because
“the distance measuring system in Gauthier has limitations in how
accurate it can measure the distance from behind the trailer to
an object such as the loading dock.” In support of this
assertion, appellant contrasts the language of claim 6 of the
reference, which recites detecting “the presence of an object
within ten feet of a portion of said vehicle,” with the purported
capability of the claimed invention to “measure the distance
between the trailer and an object within fractions of an inch.”
While we find that the language of the reference pertains to
the range, not the accuracy, of the distance sensors, the
examiner correctly states (answer, page 6): “Regardless of
Gauthier’s limitations as to how far he is able to measure, there
is no mention within the appellant’s claims as to the precise
measurement of distance.” Although claim language should be read
in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art, In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983), limitations are not to be
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 10
imported or read into the claims from the specification. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir.
1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15
(CCPA 1978). Accordingly, because claim 1 does not recite any
particular distance of the detector module, we find that
appellant’s argument regarding the accuracy of the recited
distance detection system does not distinguish claim 1 over the
teachings of Schofield and Gauthier.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1 that has
not been successfully rebutted by appellant. The rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to dependent claim 2, which appellant has
separately argued (brief, page 9). Claim 2 recites: “The vehicle
backup monitoring and alarm system of claim 1, wherein said
display monitor comprises a flat panel display mounted on a hinge
and spring system, that is capable of being folded up and away
when not in use.” The examiner’s position (answer, page 6) is
that
[s]ince Schofield discloses that the display may be
placed in various places that are convenient to the
driver, it would have been obvious to one skilled in
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 11
the art to design a display system that may be folded
up to be inconspicuous to the driver when not wanted.
Appellant responds (brief, page 9) that “there is no teaching or
suggestion of the proposed combination of flat panel display and
a spring and hinge system.”
We find that Schofield teaches the use of a flat panel
display (col. 6, lines 46-48) that “may be mounted/attached to
the dashboard, facia or header, or to the windshield at a
position conventionally occupied by an interior rearview mirror”
(col. 6, lines 46-48). Schofield also teaches that “[d]isplay 20
is of a size to be as natural as possible to the driver” (col. 6,
lines 22-23) and that “display 20 is preferably positioned within
the driver’s physiological field of view without obstructing the
view through the windshield” (col. 6, lines 29-32).
From the disclosure of Schofield, we agree with appellant’s
statement (brief, page 9) that the reference includes “no
teaching or suggestion of the proposed combination of flat panel
display and a spring and hinge system.” We find that the prior
art fails to disclose the claimed limitation that the “display
monitor comprises a flat panel display mounted on a hinge and
spring system, that is capable of being folded up and away when
not in use.”
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 12
The examiner’s unsupported conclusion of obviousness is not
a substitute for evidence and does not provide a sufficient
factual basis for a showing of incentive or motivation to provide
the prior art flat panel display of Schofield with a hinge and
spring system. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 2 and, consequently, has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to each of claims 3-9, which
depend from claim 2.
The rejection of claims 2-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Schofield et al. in view of Gauthier is
therefore reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 13
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et
al. in view of Gauthier is affirmed with respect to claim 1 and
reversed with respect to claims 2-9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SSL/kis
Appeal No. 2002-1717
Application No. 09/089,153
Page 14
JOHN D. GUGLIOTTA
SUITE 202
137 SOUTH MAIN STREET
AKRON, OH 44308