Ex Parte Saxena et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

11945227 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/945,227 11/26/2007 Sunit SAXENA 364930-991180 6999
26379 7590
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
ISLAM, SYED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
PatentDocketingU S -Palo Alto @ dlapiper. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNIT SAXENA and ANURAG GOEL
Appeal 2015-005186
Application 11/945,227
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sunit Saxena and Anurag Goel (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A device, comprising:
Appeal 2015-005186
Application 11/945,227
a housing;
a display panel on a front side of the housing that is
capable of displaying at least one of text, price information, a bar
code, an offer for a sale and a discount for a product associated
with the device that is viewable when in front of the device;
one or more attention elements located on one or more
sides of that housing, each of the one or more attention elements
face down an aisle of a store, that attract attention to the device
and the display panel, wherein the one or more attention elements
attract attention by one or more of modulating light emitted from
the one or more attention elements and varying the intensity of
the image displayed on the one or more attention elements; and
a controller that controls the display panel and the one or
more attention elements.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Manavi US 2004/0008127 A1 Jan. 15,2004
Koster US 2005/0218218 A1 Oct. 6, 2005
Diba US 2008/0258933 A1 Oct. 23,2008
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—8 and 13—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Koster and Diba.
II. Claims 9—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Koster, Diba, and Manavi.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1^4, 7, 8, and 13—22
2
Appeal 2015-005186
Application 11/945,227
Appellants argue claims 1—4, 7, 8, and 13—22 together. See Appeal
Br. 4—5. We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims
2-4, 7, 8, and 13—22 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Koster discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for “one or more attention elements located on one or more
sides of that housing.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that:
Diba discloses one or more attention elements 20 located on one
or more sides of that housing, each of the one or more attention
elements face down an aisle of a store, that attract attention to the
device and the display panel, wherein the one or more attention
elements attract attention by one or more of modulating light
emitted from the one or more attention elements and varying the
intensity of the image displayed on the one or more attention
elements, further comprising a second display panel on the front
of the housing.
Id. at 4. Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious “to use the teaching of Diba in the invention Koster and
use an attention attracting element[] with the display of Koster for the
purpose of providing additional information to viewers from all distances
with high efficiency and low cost.” Id.
Appellants argue that Koster does not disclose both a display panel on
the front of the housing and an attention element on the side of the housing.
See Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 4. Appellants further argue that “Diba does not
disclose ‘displaying at least one of text, price information, a bar code, an
offer for a sale and a discount for a product associated with the device that is
viewable when in front of the device.’” Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 5.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that “Diba was
only introduced to disclose a secondary display on the side of the housing.
The primary reference Koster clearly discloses the pricing information on
3
Appeal 2015-005186
Application 11/945,227
the display. Secondly, Diba clearly discloses the item 20 is a text ‘STOP’.”
Ans. 4.
As discussed supra, the rejection relies upon Koster’s disclosure of a
display panel and Diba’s teaching of using an attention element on a side of
the housing. See Final Act. 3^4. Thus, the Examiner is correct. Further, the
Examiner’s findings that Koster’s display shows pricing information and
that Diba’s attention element displays text are also correct. See, e.g., Koster,
Fig. 2; Diba, Fig 1. Moreover, Appellants’ arguments attack the references
and not their combined teachings. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-4,
7, 8, and 13—22, which fall therewith.
Claim 5
Appellants argue that Diba fails to disclose an attention element
“wherein the states are an on state, an off state or a flash state.” Appeal Br.
5; Reply Br. 5.1
Responding to this argument, the Examiner cites paragraph 34 of Diba
as disclosing this limitation. Paragraph 34 states:
Coordinated with the display of the “approaching target” by the
graphics display 14, the verbal display 20 flashes the word “stop”
with each illumination of an additional LED ring by the graphics
display 14. As nine percent of the population suffers from some
1 We note that Appellants refer to “the anticipation rejection” of this claim.
See Appeal Br. 5. However, the rejection of claim 5 is based on
obviousness. See Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we understand Appellants’
reference to anticipation, rather than obviousness, to be a typographical
error.
4
Appeal 2015-005186
Application 11/945,227
degree of red-green color blindness, the verbal message
displayed by the verbal display 20 aids in preventing any
misinterpretation of the supplemental stop light signal by color
blind drivers.
Diba 134 (emphasis omitted). Thus, the Examiner’s finding is correct.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 5.
Claim 6
Appellants argue that Diba fails to disclose a controller that “controls
the states of the one or more attention elements based on a programmed time
schedule.” Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 5.2
Responding to this argument, the Examiner finds that Diba “discloses
controller 19 controlling the operation of the displays.” Diba describes
controller 19 as “provid[ing] the signals necessary to control the verbal
display 20, especially in the display of letters and words to transmit
messages to oncoming traffic,” such as the flashing of the word “stop”
discussed supra. Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner is finding is correct.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 4.
Rejection II
Claims 9 and 12
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 9 and 12. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 5. Rather, Appellants argue
that “[tjhese dependent claims are not obvious over Koster, Diba and
Manavi for the same reasons as the independent claims since Manavi does
not have the elements missing in Diba and Koster.” Id. However, as
discussed supra, Appellants fail to identify any elements missing from either
Diba or Koster. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is unconvincing.
2 See note 2.
5
Appeal 2015-005186
Application 11/945,227
We sustain the Examiner decision rejecting claims 9 and 12.
Claims 10 and 11
Appellants group claims 10 and 11, with claims 5 and 6, respectively.
See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ argument for the patentability of
claim 10 is unconvincing for the same reason it is unconvincing for claim 5
discussed supra. Similarly, Appellants’ argument for the patentability of
claim 11 is unconvincing for the same reason it is unconvincing for claim 6.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10 and 11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—22 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6