Ex Parte ROEBER et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 201915160839 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/160,839 05/20/2016 28395 7590 05/30/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Marc ROEBER 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. 83643697 3493 EXAMINER KIM, SEOKJIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2019 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARC ROEBER, GERALD DOERNE, KRISTIAN ZARSE, and FRANK AUST Appeal2018-006721 Application 15/160,839 1 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Meisner et al. (US 2015/0151669 Al, published June 4, 2015) ("Meisner"). 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant is the Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1 ). 2 We refer to the Specification filed May 20, 2016 ("Spec."), the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 10, 2018 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated Apr. 17, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed June 12, 2018 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2018-006721 Application 15/160,839 Independent claim 1 below is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal ( emphasis added): 1. A method of operating an electronically controlled headlamp system of a vehicle comprising: generating a high-beam light distribution directed at a roadway on which the vehicle is travelling, the high-beam light distribution comprising a high-beam region and a dimmed region separated by a high-beam edge; and operating an electronic controller to cause displacement of the high-beam edge at a selected rate that varies with an environment of the vehicle or a state of the vehicle. Appeal Br. Claims App 'x. ANALYSIS Appellant's principle argument on appeal is that Meisner does not disclose a dimmed region of a high-beam light distribution, as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 2-3; Reply Br. 2-3). Specifically, Appellant contends that paragraph 32 of Meisner discloses a directed, concentrated light beam and "a scattered light range" but the latter is not a dimmed region "because a dimmed region is formed and not just inherent by virtue of light diffusion" (Appeal Br. 2). To support this argument, Appellant argues they have acted as a lexicographer to define the "dimmed region" of claim 1 in this way because paragraph 13 of the Specification states "the dimmed ... region can be formed, for example, by means of a movable component in front of the reflector of the high-beam headlamp" (id.). Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner correctly finds that claim 1 does not recite that the "dimmed region" is "formed" (Ans. 9). With regard to Appellant acting as their own lexicographer, the Examiner finds the language cited by Appellant is exemplary and the first 2 Appeal2018-006721 Application 15/160,839 sentence of the same paragraph defines "dimmed" in a different way (id. at 9-10). Paragraph 13 of the Specification states the following: The term "dimmed" or "non-dazzling" region as used herein means the region within the regular high-beam distribution in which high-beam illumination is not applied. Without the invention being restricted thereto, the dimmed or non-dazzling region can be formed, for example, by means of a movable component in front of the reflector of the high-beam headlamp (wherein the high-beam headlamp itself can be rigidly installed). An inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer if he defines the specific terms used to describe the invention "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must 'clearly express an intent' to redefine the term." Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm 't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, Appellant's specification states that the dimmed region "can be formed" in the context of an example and explicitly states that the invention is not restricted to this example. As indicated by the Examiner, this is insufficient to demonstrate a clear intent to define "dimmed region" in the manner asserted by Appellant. Alternatively, paragraph 13 of the Specification states "[t]he term 'dimmed' or 'non-dazzling' region as used herein means the region within the regular high-beam distribution in which high-beam illumination is not applied." This sets forth a definition for "dimmed region." In comparison, paragraph 32 of Meisner discloses: 3 Appeal2018-006721 Application 15/160,839 An upper headlight beam boundary may be understood to mean a transition between a directed, concentrated light beam of a headlight and a scattered light range of the headlight. The headlight beam boundary may represent, for example, a predefined threshold of a light intensity of the headlight. The Examiner correctly finds that Appellant's definition of the "dimmed region" as a "region within the regular high-beam distribution in which high- beam illumination is not applied" encompasses the "scattered light range" of a headlight disclosed by Meisner in paragraph 32 (id. at 4, 10). In other words, the "scattered light range" of Meisner is a dimmed region in which the "directed, concentrated light beam" disclosed by Meisner in paragraph 32 is not applied. The Examiner also correctly explains why Meisner discloses an electronic controller that causes displacement of a high-beam edge at a selected rate that varies with an environment of a vehicle or state of a vehicle (i.e., based on a distance/ direction of another vehicle), as recited in claim 1 (id. at 4, citing Meisner ,r,r 17, 73, 7 4, Fig. 8). Appellant further argues Meisner does not disclose that a ''formed region is 'displace[d] ... at a selected rate that varies with an environment of the vehicle'" because Meisner does not disclose a ''formed dimmed region-as opposed to a dimmer region" and this argument was not addressed by the Examiner (Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 3). This argument is also unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Appellant's claimed dimmed region, as properly construed in view of Appellant's Specification, encompasses the "scattered light range" disclosed by Meisner. As a result, Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not argue claims 2-12 separately 4 Appeal2018-006721 Application 15/160,839 from claim 1 (Appeal Br. 3). For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 102(a)(l) rejection of claims 1-12. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 is affirmed. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation