Ex Parte SHIMIZU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 201612729278 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121729,278 03/23/2010 65565 7590 05/12/2016 SUGHRUE-265550 2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tsunemitsu SHIMIZU 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. Ql 18150 6895 EXAMINER SNYDER, ADAM J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2016 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): SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TSUNEMITSU SHIMIZU, HIROMI YAMAZAKI, and AKIRA MASUDA Appeal2014-008340 Application 12/729,278 Technology Center 2600 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to a display control apparatus. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A display control apparatus, comprising: Appeal2014-008340 Application 12/729,278 a display control section that controls to display an image showing an operation of an equipment on a display portion provided in a vehicle and illuminate the display portion with a first brightness; and a counting section that counts a time which elapses after the equipment is activated, wherein the display control section changes the brightness of the display portion from the first brightness to a second brightness which is lower in brightness than the first brightness when an ignition switch of the vehicle is not turned on within a predetermined elapsed time period, wherein the display portion is at least partially illuminated but still visible when at said second brightness. Pillar Ma Aoshima References and Rejections US 2004/0002794 Al US 2004/0155854 Al JP 90-042043 Jan. 1, 2001 Aug. 12, 2004 Feb. 10, 1997 Claims 1--4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aoshima and Ma. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aoshima, Ma, and Pillar. ANALYSIS Issue 1 Appellants argue one skilled in the art would not have modified Aoshima to include Ma's feature of "wherein the display portion is at least partially illuminated but still visible when at said second brightness." See 2 Appeal2014-008340 Application 12/729,278 App. Br. 6-11. In particular, Appellants cite Leo Pharm. Prod. Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013), and contend "a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the dimming feature of Ma with the vehicle display device in Aoshima." App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 10. We disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court has held "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Further, "[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103" and "the 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." Id. at 418-19. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning, because one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Aoshima to incorporate Ma's feature "to use a display controlling apparatus with a controlled backlight reduction for provid[ing] an improved method for dimming LCD backlighting that is less noticeable to a user." Ans. 4. Further, "Ma improves Aoshima by providing a gradual dimming and thereby removing the harsh on/off provided by Aoshima .... providing a gradual dimming to be unperceived by the user would improve [the] Aoshima invention." Id. at 10. The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellants do not present 3 Appeal2014-008340 Application 12/729,278 adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements were "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher- Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Appellants misinterpret the holding of Leo Pharmaceutical Products. Unlike this case, Leo Pharmaceutical Products is not simply a combination of elements found in the prior art. The inventors of the '013 patent recognized and solved a problem with the storage stability of certain formulations-a problem that the prior art did not recognize and a problem that was not solved for over a decade. Leo Pharm. Prod., 726 F.3d at 1353. Unlike this case, Leo Pharmaceutical Products involves "surprisingly successful results" and "strong objective indicia of nonobviousness." Id. at 1356. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that because Aoshima and Ma teach prior art elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in the disputed claim limitation, the proposed combination would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Applying Ma's technique in the Aoshima system would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Issue 2 Appellants contend the Examiner fails to show Aoshima teaches "chang[ing] the brightness of the display portion from the first brightness to a second brightness which is lower in brightness than the first brightness when an ignition switch of the vehicle is not turned on within a 4 Appeal2014-008340 Application 12/729,278 predetermined elapsed time period," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 11-14. In particular, Appellants argue Aoshima "does not disclose a first power supply level and a second power supply level, where the second power supply level is lower than the first power supply level but still turned on." App. Br. 13. Appellants have not persuaded us of error. The Examiner provides two alternative findings with respect to the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 3--4; 10-11. In particular, in addition to citing Aoshima, the Examiner alternatively cites Ma (in combination Aoshima) for teaching the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 3--4; 11 (mapping the claimed first brightness to Ma's Full Scale, and the claimed second brightness to Ma's Dim Level). Appellants do not dispute such finding. Because it is undisputed Ma teaches the disputed claim limitation, the Examiner's alternative finding based on Aoshima alone is unnecessary for the rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-5 1 for similar reasons. For similar reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 6. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6. 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). 1 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Aoshima, Ma, and Pillar. Appellants do not present separate arguments for claim 5. 5 Appeal2014-008340 Application 12/729,278 AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation