Ex Parte Schondorf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

14454306 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
14/454,306 08/07/2014 Steven Yellin Schondorf 83456094 1213
28395 7590 01/31/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER HAGHANI, SHAD AN E
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
docketing @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN YELLIN SCHONDORF and MAHER GHNEIM
Appeal 2017-007935
Application 14/454,306
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20, all of the claims pending in the
application. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 27, 2017, “App. Br.”), the Reply
Brief (filed May 3, 2017, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
April 14, 2017, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed December 19, 2016, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed August 7, 2014, “Spec.”) for their
Appeal 2017-007935
Application 14/454,306
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a vehicle camera video display having an
indicator. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1,9, 14, and 18 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 9, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
9. A camera system for a vehicle, comprising:
a display configured to display a camera video having an
indicator, wherein the indicator is static on the display in
response to the camera video being frozen on the display
thereby notifying a viewer that the camera video is frozen and
the indicator is dynamic on the display by moving between
locations on the display in response to the camera video being
live on the display.
References and Rejections
Saito
Bettis, et al.,
Nix
US 2006/0018207 Al Jan. 26, 2006
US 2007/0058647 Al Mar. 15, 2007
US 9,117,123 B2 Aug. 25,2015
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nix, Bettis, and Saito. Final Act. 4—8.
respective details.
2
Appeal 2017-007935
Application 14/454,306
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—20 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred.
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3—8.
Claims 1-20: Obviousness over Nix, Bettis, and Saito
Appellants argue all claims in view of the recitations of Claim 1.
App. Br. 3.
Claim 1 recites a method for a vehicle, comprising a display
configured to display a camera video having an indicator, wherein “the
indicator” is:
(a) static on the display when the camera video is
frozen on the display; and
(b) dynamic on the display, by moving between
locations on the display, when the camera video is live on the
display.
In other words, Claim 1 recites an indicator that is static, under a first
condition, and the same indicator is dynamic, under a second condition.
App. Br. 3. Appellants contend that, in contrast, the Nix-Bettis-Saito
combination teaches a first, static indicator and a second, dynamic indicator.
Id., at 3^4; 5—6. Appellants argue Nix’s warning graphic, cited by the
Examiner, is the static “STOP/ERROR” indicator. Id., at 5. Appellants
argue Bettis’ flashing icon is a second icon to indicate whether the video
feed is life or delayed. Id. Thus, Appellants argue, Nix-Bettis, in
combination, teaches a first static “STOP/ERROR” icon to indicate static
3
Appeal 2017-007935
Application 14/454,306
video and a second flashing (dynamic) icon to indicate live/delayed video.
Id. The Examiner maps the claimed “indicator” to the “graphic overlay”
of Nix and in view of this mapping, the Examiner excludes Nix’
“STOP/ERROR” icon. Ans. 7.
CAN
FIG. 1
Figure 1 of Nix shows a vehicular rear-view camera system.
Nix discloses a rear-view camera 12 that provides an analog video
signal to a head unit 16 including a video decoder 18. Nix, col. 2,11. 16—20.
Valid pixel data, processed by the decoder, is output to a display monitor 28.
Id., 11. 33—36. If the pixel data is invalid, a warning graphic “(e.g., STOP or
ERROR)” is retrieved from graphic overlay memory 32. Id., 11. 37-41.
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, the “graphic overlay” of Nix
Figure 1 is a memory device and is not an icon or other image to be viewed
4
Appeal 2017-007935
Application 14/454,306
by a user. Rather, numeral 32 refers to “a graphic overlay memory 32.”
Nix, col. 2,1. 41 (see Nix Fig. 1, reproduced above). Nix discloses where
the pixel data is invalid, integrity check functional block, i.e., circuit 24,
causes to be displayed a “STOP or ERROR” warning graphic (indicator) that
is retrieved from graphic overlay memory 32. Nix, col. 2,11. 31—41.
“By mapping [the] ‘indicator’ of Claim 1 to [the] ‘graphic overlay’ of
Nix Fig. 1,” the Examiner, “exclude[s] from the combination the ‘STOP
/ERROR’-shaped icon of Nix.” Ans. 7. However, this finding is contrary to
the explicit disclosure of Nix.
We are persuaded of reversible error.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
5