Ex Parte Peterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

13964140 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/964,140 08/12/2013
153508 7590 05/29/2018
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP/Magna
650 Trade Centre Way
Suite 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Kenneth C. Peterson
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.
D0N0l-P2l63/424886 8081
EXAMINER
MESA,JOSEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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):
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
asytsma@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH C. PETERSON, KEITH D. FOOTE,
RICHARD R. HOOK, ERIC S. DEUEL, and NIALL R. LYNAM
Appeal2017-011147
Application 13/964,140 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part. 2
1 Appellants identify Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed August 12, 2013,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed November 2, 2016, the Appeal
Brief ("Br.") filed March 31, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed
June 30, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed August 30, 2017.
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to "interior rearview mirror systems of
vehicles." (Spec. ,r 2.) In one example, Appellants' rearview mirror system
includes "an interior rearview mirror assembly, an assembly disposed at an
upper region of the [vehicle's] windshield, and a display device disposed at
the assembly," the "display device [being] operable to project a mirror
image of display information towards and onto [a] display region of the
windshield for viewing by a driver of the vehicle," the display information
being "viewable and discernible by the driver of the vehicle when the driver
is normally operating the vehicle." (Abstract.)
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claims 1 and 13, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display system of a vehicle, said display system
compnsmg:
a windshield for a vehicle equipped with said display
system;
an interior rearview mirror assembly having a reflective
element and a mounting structure for mounting said interior
rearview mirror assembly at an interior surface at an upper region
of said windshield;
an assembly disposed at said upper region of said
windshield, wherein said assembly is disposed at or near said
interior rearview mirror assembly;
wherein said upper region of said windshield comprises a
display region;
a display device disposed at said assembly;
wherein said display device is operable to project a mirror
image of display information towards and onto said display
region of said windshield for viewing by a driver of the vehicle;
and
wherein the display information is viewable at the display
region of the windshield and is viewable and discernible by the
driver of the vehicle when the driver is normally operating the
2
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
vehicle.
13. A display system of a vehicle, said display system
compnsmg:
a windshield for a vehicle equipped with said display
system;
an interior rearview mirror assembly having a reflective
element and a mounting structure for mounting said interior
rearview mirror assembly at an interior surface at an upper region
of said windshield;
an assembly disposed at said upper region of said
windshield, wherein said assembly is disposed at or near said
interior rearview mirror assembly;
wherein said upper region of said windshield comprises a
display region;
wherein said display region is at a driver side region of
said windshield;
a display device disposed at said assembly;
wherein said display device is operable to project a mirror
image of display information towards and onto said display
region of said windshield for viewing by a driver of the vehicle;
wherein the display information is viewable at the display
region of the windshield and is viewable and discernible by the
driver of the vehicle when the driver is normally operating the
vehicle; and
wherein said display region is at a location at said
windshield that allows the driver to view the projected mirror
image in reflection.
(App. Br. 38--42 (Claims App'x).)
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 4--11, 13, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) based on Schofield et al. (US 2002/0003571 Al,
published Jan. 10, 2002, "Schofield"). (Final Act. 9-16.)
3
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
(2) Claims 2, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Schofield and Quigley et al. (US 2004/0075537 Al,
published Apr. 22, 2004, "Quigley"). (Final Act. 16-18.)
(3) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schofield and Cleary (US 2006/0154085 Al, published
July 13, 2006). (Final Act. 18-19.)
(4) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Schofield, Schofield et al. (US 7,526,103 B2, issued Apr.
28, 2009, "Schofield-2"), and DeWind et al. (US 2006/0164230 Al,
published July 27, 2006, "De Wind"). (Final Act. 19-24.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 6-11 rejected under§ 102(b)
based on Schofield
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
an interior rearview mirror assembly having a reflective
element and a mounting structure for mounting said interior
rearview mirror assembly at an interior surface at an upper
region of said windshield;
an assembly disposed at said upper region of said
windshield, wherein said assembly is disposed at or near said
interior rearview mirror assembly;
wherein said upper region of said windshield comprises a
display region;
a display device disposed at said assembly;
wherein said display device is operable to project a mirror
image of display information towards and onto said display
region of said windshield for viewing by a driver of the vehicle;
and
wherein the display information is viewable at the display
region of the windshield and is viewable and discernible by the
4
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
driver of the vehicle when the driver is normally operating the
vehicle.
(App. Br. 38 (Claims App'x).)
The Examiner finds various sections of Schofield, including
paragraph 266, disclose all the limitations of claim 1. (Final Act. 10-11.)
Appellants argue "[ n Jone of the cited paragraphs ( or other portion of
Schofield) discloses the windshield itself comprising an upper display
region, as claimed." (App. Br. 16.) Appellants further argue "there is no
disclosure in Schofield of a display device at or near an interior rearview
mirror assembly that is operable to project a mirror image of display
information towards and onto a display region at an upper region of the
windshield for viewing by a driver of the vehicle." (App. Br. 15, 17; see
also Reply Br. 3.)
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Schofield
anticipates claim 1, and we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 266 of
Schofield teaches the limitations of claim 1. Schofield's paragraph 266
discloses:
Optionally, the electronics to generate an image can be located
at, on or in the interior mirror assembly, and an image can be
projected from the interior mirror assembly toward the vehicle
windshield for viewing by the driver of the vehicle by looking at
or through the vehicle windshield.
(Schofield ,r 266.)
As recognized by the Examiner, Schofield's vehicular interior
rearview mirror assembly teaches the claimed interior rearview mirror
assembly mounted at an interior surface at an upper region of a windshield.
(Ans. 19--20 (citing Schofield ,r 266, Figs. 1-11).)
5
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
Schofield further discloses "the electronics to generate an image can
be located at, on or in the interior mirror assembly" (see Schofield ,r 266
( emphasis added)), thereby teaching the claimed display device (Schofield's
"electronics to generate an image") disposed at the mirror assembly at an
upper region of the windshield. (Ans. 20.)
Further, Schofield teaches the claimed "upper region of said
windshield comprises a display region." (Ans. 20-21.) Particularly,
Schofield teaches the mirror assembly's electronics generate a projected
image viewable by the driver "by looking at . .. the vehicle windshield."
(See Schofield ,r 266 (emphasis added).) The windshield's portion at which
Schofield's driver looks in order to view the projected image teaches the
claimed display region of the windshield. (Ans. 20-21.)
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Schofield
does not teach the claimed "projection of a mirror image of display
information." (App. Br. 18.) Appellants acknowledge "the electronics of
Schofield (discussed in paragraph [0266]) may project an image," but
contend this is not a projection of "a mirror image of display information"
because "[t]he image projected by the display of Schofield may comprise a
symmetrical icon or the like, whereby the driver may view the projected
image (not a mirror image of display information) by looking through the
windshield." (App. Br. 18 (emphasis added).) That is, Appellants argue
Schofield does not teach the "claimed projection of a mirror image of
display information ... provided so the display information is viewable in its
proper orientation and format at the display region of the windshield."
(App. Br. 7 (emphasis added).)
6
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim
1, which does not require the display information to be viewable "in its
proper orientation and format at the display region of the windshield" (see
App. Br. 7). Claim 1 also does not require the driver to be able to view only
"the projected image" but "not a mirror image of display information[] by
looking through the windshield" (see App. Br. 18). Claim 1 merely recites
"the display information [ whose mirror image was projected on the
windshield] is viewable at the display region of the windshield and is
viewable and discernible by the driver." Thus, claim 1 only requires
projected information to be seen at the windshield, without restriction as to
the information's orientation or format. This is disclosed by Schofield's
paragraph 266, which states "an image can be projected from the interior
mirror assembly toward the vehicle windshield for viewing by the driver of
the vehicle by looking at ... the vehicle windshield." (See Schofield ,r 266;
Ans. 20-21.) Therefore, Schofield's disclosure of an "image [that] can be
projected" (i-f 266) teaches a "mirror image" of some "display information"
(e.g., of image information in reverse), as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 20-21.)
Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of dependent claims 6-11, argued for their dependency
on claim 1. (App. Br. 22.)
Claim 2 rejected under§ 103 (a)
based on Schofield and Quigley
With respect to dependent claim 2 (reciting "wherein said display
region comprises a tinted region of said windshield"), Appellants argue
"there is no disclosure or suggestion in Quigley to provide a display region
7
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
( of a windshield) that comprises a tinted region of the windshield ....
[ m ]oreover, there is no disclosure or suggestion in Quigley of any display or
display region." (App. Br. 28.)
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because Appellants
improperly attack Quigley individually where the rejection is based on a
combination of Schofield and Quigley. See In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 426
( CCP A 1981 ). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Schofield, not Quigley,
for "a display region" of a windshield for "project[ing] a mirror image of
display information ... for viewing by a driver of the vehicle," as discussed
supra with respect to claim 1. (Final Act. 16.) And the Examiner relies on
Quigley for disclosing that windshields may include tinted regions. (Final
Act. 16-17 ( citing Quigley ,r 28, Fig. 2).)
Appellants also argue that because Quigley's sun-blocking tinted
windshield is for a police vehicle indication system dissimilar from
Schofield's driver viewable mirror display, the Examiner's combination of
Quigley and Schofield is improper and would not result in the claimed
display region. (App. Br. 28; Reply Br. 4.) The Examiner, however, has
provided sufficient articulation for tinting Schofield's windshield including
the display region, "in order to assist in preventing driver blindness from the
sun" as disclosed by Quigley. (Ans. 25 ( citing Quigley ,r 28, Fig. 2a); Final
Act. 17.) We agree with the Examiner that the skilled artisan would have
recognized the benefit of tinting a windshield region where images are
"projected from the interior mirror assembly ... for viewing by the driver"
(see Schofield ,r 266); the benefit is a reduction in sun glare as perceived by
the driver (see Quigley ,r 28).
8
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
Appellants also argue Quigley's "preventing driver blindness from the
sun" is not a "rational underpinning" for combining with Schofield because
Schofield is not concerned with "driver blindness from the sun." (App. Br.
28.) We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Schofield need not
specifically discuss driver blindness from the sun (sun glare) in order for it
to have been obvious to prevent sun glare while driving. See KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ("[T]he analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.").
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 2. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3 rejected under§ 103 (a)
based on Schofield and Cleary
With respect to dependent claim 3 (reciting "wherein said display
region comprises a frit layer disposed at a surface of said windshield"),
Appellants argue "[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion of a display region
in Cleary[, n ]or is there any disclosure of any display device in Cleary."
(App. Br. 30.)
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because Appellants
improperly attack Cleary individually where the rejection is based on a
combination of Schofield and Cleary. Specifically, the Examiner relies on
Schofield, not Cleary, for "a display device disposed at said assembly," and
"a display region" of a windshield for "project[ing] a mirror image of
display information ... for viewing by a driver of the vehicle," as discussed
9
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
supra with respect to claim 1. (Final Act. 18.) The Examiner relies on
Cleary for disclosing windshields with surface frit layers. (Final Act. 18
(citing Cleary ,r,r 22-23, Figs. 1-2).)
Appellants further argue the Examiner's combination of Schofield and
Cleary lacks articulated reasoning, and does not result in a "frit layer being
established at a [ windshield] display region." (App. Br. 30-32; see also
Reply Br. 6.) Particularly, Appellants argue Cleary's "multilayered article
having a frit layer disposed along its periphery for improved durability and
to protect the adhesive layer has no bearing as to the combinability or
motivation to combine Schofield and Cleary" as "there is no disclosure or
suggestion in Schofield that debris impacts are a concern with a windshield
of a vehicle that is equipped with Schofield's video screen." (App. Br. 30-
31.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner has
articulated sufficient reasoning for disposing Cleary' s frit layer at a surface
of Schofield's windshield including at a surface of the windshield's display
region, to improve the windshield's resistance to debris impacts during
vehicle use and increase the windshield's useful life. (Ans. 30 (citing Cleary
,r 21); Final Act. 18-19.) Particularly, Cleary's multilayer includes a
"frit layer [that] advantageously experiences compressive stresses rather
than undesirably experiencing tension stresses when debris impacts the
exterior layer ... of the multilayer[]"; the frit layer thus "experiences
compressive stress during a debris impact, thereby lessening the risk of
breakage" and of propagating cracks to the windshield's glass, and
increasing useful life of the bond between windshield glass and vehicle.
(See Cleary ,r,r 5, 21, 28-29, 42.) We agree with the Examiner that the
10
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
skilled artisan would have recognized the benefit of disposing Cleary's frit
layer on a windshield's surface including a surface of the windshield's
display region disclosed by Schofield.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under§ 102(b)
based on Schofield
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein said
display region comprises a clear region of said windshield." The Examiner
finds Schofield discloses all limitations of claim 4. (Final Act. 11 ( citing
Schofield ,r 273, Fig. 11).)
Appellants argue Schofield does not anticipate the display system
recited in claim 4. (App. Br. 20-21.) Rather, Schofield's paragraph 273 and
Figure 11 "show a separate and distinct video screen that is mounted to the
windshield at a central region of the windshield," not "a windshield having
an upper region that comprises a display region that comprises a clear region
of the windshield," as required by claim 4. (App. Br. 20-21.) That is, claim
4 requires that "the display region is part of the [ clear region of the]
windshield," in contrast to "the 'display region' of Schofield's Figure 11 [,
which] is the display screen itself ... not a clear region of the windshield."
(App. Br. 20-21 ( emphasis added).)
We agree with Appellants. The cited portions of Schofield disclose
rearview mirrors and video screens (see Fig. 11 ), not a display region
comprising a clear region of a windshield, as claimed. Further, the
Examiner has not responded to Appellants' specific arguments in the
11
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
Answer. As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support
the rejection of claim 4, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein said display
region is at a driver side region of said windshield." The Examiner finds
Schofield discloses all limitations of claim 5. (Final Act. 11 ( citing
Schofield ,r,r 240, 242-243, Figs. 5-8).)
Appellants argue Schofield does not anticipate the display system
recited in claim 5. (App. Br. 21-22.) Rather, Schofield's paragraphs 240,
242-243, and Figures 5-8 "show video screens that are part of and viewable
at the mirror assembly," not "a display region at a driver side region of the
windshield," as required by claim 5. (App. Br. 21.) We agree with
Appellants. The cited portions of Schofield disclose rearview mirrors and
video screens (see Figs. 5-8), not a display region at a driver side region of
a windshield, as claimed. Further, the Examiner has not responded to
Appellants' specific arguments in the Answer. As the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence to support the rejection of claim 5, we do not
sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 5. 3
3 We acknowledge claims 4 and 5 may be obvious because a skilled artisan
may recognize windshields include clear regions and driver side regions, and
Schofield discloses a windshield with a display region allowing "viewing by
the driver of the vehicle by looking at or through the vehicle windshield."
(See Schofield ,r 266.) However, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 4 and 5, as these rejections rely solely on an anticipation
rationale without sufficient evidence in a single prior art reference.
12
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
Claim 12 rejected under§ 103(a)
based on Schofield, Schofield-2, and De Wind
Dependent claim 12 recites, inter alia, "said interior rearview mirror
assembly comprises at least one backlit user input disposed at said reflective
element [ of the rearview mirror assembly] at a user input region."
Appellants contend Schofield and De Wind "do[] not disclose or
suggest 'at least one backlit user input disposed at said reflective element at
a user input region,' as claimed," and "[ t ]he Examiner ... cites to no
disclosure of a backlit user input disposed at the reflective element." (App.
Br. 34; Reply Br. 6.) Rather, "Schofield's buttons" and "De Wind's touch
sensors" are "at the bezel of the mirror assembly and not at the reflective
element [of the mirror assembly]." (App. Br. 34.) Appellants also argue
Schofield's and De Wind's user inputs "are not backlit." (Reply Br. 7.)
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner cites
paragraph 305 of Schofield, which discloses a user input and user input
region included in a video display that is disposed at a rearview mirror's
reflective element. (Ans. 34--35; Final Act. 20; see Schofield ,r 305
( describing "touch-sensitive displays" of video mirror assemblies); see also
Schofield Fig. 36 and ,r 303 (describing a video mirror assembly with a
video display disposed at the mirror's reflective element). Paragraph 306 of
Schofield, continuing to describe the mirror assembly of paragraph 305,
further provides "any video display or video display mirror of the present
invention may comprise a touch-sensitive display." (See Schofield ,r 306.)
Thus, Schofield discloses an interior rearview mirror assembly comprising a
user input disposed at the mirror's reflective element at a user input region,
as required by claim 12. Schofield further discloses the user input region
13
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
may be backlit as part of a backlit video display. (See Schofield ,r 306
("Video displays and/or video display mirrors of the present invention
optionally include light emitting sources, such as light emitting diodes, to
provide back lighting and/or local illumination").) Thus, Schofield teaches a
backlit user input disposed at a reflective element of a rearview mirror
assembly, as claimed.
Appellants further argue the Examiner's rejection "fails to provide a
rational underpinning to make the combination" of references. (Reply Br.
7 .) The Examiner, however, has provided sufficient articulation for
combining Schofield with De Wind and Schofield-2, not addressed by
Appellants. (Final Act. 21-24; Ans. 37-38.)
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 12. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 12.
Claims 13, 15-18, and 20 rejected under§ 102(b)
based on Schofield
Independent claim 13 recites, inter alia:
wherein said upper region of said windshield comprises a
display region ... at a driver side region of said windshield;
a display device disposed at said assembly [ disposed at or
near said interior rearview mirror assembly];
wherein said display device is operable to project a mirror
image of display information towards and onto said display
region of said windshield for viewing by a driver of the vehicle;
wherein the display information is viewable at the display
region of the windshield and is viewable and discernible by the
driver of the vehicle when the driver is normally operating the
vehicle; and
wherein said display region is at a location at said
windshield that allows the driver to view the projected mirror
14
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
image in reflection.
(App. Br. 40 (Claims App'x).) Claim 18 similarly recites "wherein said
display region is at a location at said windshield that allows the driver to
view the projected mirror image in reflection."
The Examiner finds Schofield discloses all limitations of claims 13
and 18, including the "display region [being] at a location at said windshield
that allows the driver to view the projected mirror image in reflection."
(Final Act. 14, 16 (citing Schofield ,r,r 240, 242-243, 266, Figs. 5-8); Ans.
42.)
Appellants argue Schofield does not anticipate the display systems
recited in claims 13 and 18. (App. Br. 23, 25; Reply Br. 7.) We agree with
Appellants' arguments. "A rejection for anticipation under section 102
requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
in a single prior art reference." See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994).) To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the
claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as
in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359,
1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Here, Schofield's paragraph 266 discloses a display device
("electronics to generate an image") projects an image onto a display region
of the windshield ("toward the vehicle windshield for viewing by the driver
of the vehicle by looking at ... the vehicle windshield"), but paragraph 266
does not specify that the windshield's display region "is at a location at said
windshield that allows the driver to view the projected mirror image in
15
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
reflection," as required by claims 13 and 18. (See Schofield ,r 266.) We
have also reviewed the other cited portions of Schofield and do not find they
support the Examiner's finding of a "display region ... at a location at said
windshield that allows the driver to view the projected mirror image in
reflection," as claimed.
Accordingly, because a § 102 rejection requires the claimed feature be
disclosed in the reference, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and
18. Claims 15-1 7 and 20 depend from claims 13 or 18 and incorporate their
limitations by dependency. Thus, for the stated reasons, we likewise do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 15-17 and 20.
Claims 14 and 19 rejected under§ 103 (a)
based on Schofield and Quigley
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schofield and Quigley. Claims 14 and 19 depend from
claims 13 and 18 and, thus, incorporate their limitations by dependency. We
find no mention, in Quigley, of a display region at a windshield location that
allows a driver to view the projected mirror image in reflection.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown Quigley teaches or suggests the
deficiency of Schofield indicated with respect to the § 102 rejection of
claims 13 and 18, and, for this reason, we determine claims 14 and 19 would
not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on this record.
We, therefore, do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 14 and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-12 is affirmed.
16
Appeal 2017-011147
Application 13/964, 140
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, and 13-20 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17