Ex Parte Sullivan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12780021 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121780,021 05/14/2010
62008 7590 08/31/2016
MAIER & MAIER, PLLC
345 South Patrick Street
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven J. Sullivan
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.
SULLIV AN-001-US 9756
EXAMINER
CHOI, DAVIDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
patent@maierandmaier.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEVEN J. SULLIVAN
Appeal2015-003824
Application 12/780,021
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003824
Application 12/780,021
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-3, 6, and 8-13. Claims 4, 5, and 7 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a mobile device for displaying
construction-related documents. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 10 are exemplary:
1. A mobile device for displaying construction-related
documents, comprising:
at least one touch-sensitive display surface with a luminance
of between 800-1200 candela per square meter;
at least one image capture device;
a rugged outer casing constructed of aluminum alloy;
at least one handle;
a touch-screen interface with an oleophobic coating for
viewing, editing and annotating construction related documents
a processor;
a storage medium;
an optical drive;
a global positioning sensor;
at least one power source with at least one thermal sensor and
at least one over-current sensor; and
a plurality of external connection ports,
wherein the at least on touch-sensitive display surface has an
ambient light sensor which adjusts an intensity of the backlighting
of the display in relation to an amount of ambient light proximate
the display.
2
Appeal2015-003824
Application 12/780,021
10. A method of displaying construction-related
documents, comprising:
selecting, via a touch-screen interface with an oleophobic
coating, a construction-related document from a list of construction-
related documents stored on a mobile device;
displaying the selected construction-related document on the
screen of the mobile device;
adjusting an intensity of the backlighting of the screen in
relation to an amount of ambient light proximate the screen,
wherein a luminance of the screen is between 800-1200 candela per
square meter;
providing an overlay superimposed over the construction
related document on the screen of the mobile device;
editing or annotating the construction-related document;
storing an updated version of the construction-related
document on the mobile device; and
tracking and maintaining a version history of previous
versions of the construction related document.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Panasonic H 1 (Panasonic Corporation, The NEW
Panasonic Toughbook HJ (2008)), Wurzelbacher, Jr. (US 7 ,886,903 B 1;
Feb. 15, 2011), D'Urso (US 2008/0265387 Al; Oct. 30, 2008),
Lazarovich (US 2004/0156154 Al; Aug. 12, 2004), and Yoshida
(US 6,556,278 Bl; Apr. 29, 2003).
Claims 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Long (US 2008/0307321 Al; Dec. 11, 2008), D'Urso,
Windows XP (Microsoft Corporation, A Guide to Microsoft Paint 1-16
(2001)), and Yoshida.
3
Appeal2015-003824
Application I2/780,02 I
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments (Br. 4---6) that the
Examiner improperly combined Panasonic HI, Wurzelbacher, D'Urso,
Lazarovich, and Yoshida.
The Examiner acknowledged that Panasonic HI does not disclose
the limitations "a rugged outer casing constructed of aluminum alloy"
(Final Act. 4), "a touch-screen interface with an oleophobic coating" (id.),
"at least one thermal sensor and at least one over-current sensor" (id. at 4--
5), "a luminance of between 800-I200 candela per square meter" and "an
ambient light sensor which adjusts an intensity of the backlighting of the
display in relation to an amount of ambient light proximate the display"
(id. at 5). However, the Examiner relied upon Wurzelbacher for the
disclosure of an all aluminum shell for protection of a netbook and relied
upon D 'Urso for the disclosure of an oleophobic layer that prevents
smudges. (Id. at 4.) Furthermore, the Examiner relied upon Lazarovich
for the disclosure of a thermal sensor and an overcurrent protection unit
(id. at 4--5) and relied upon Yoshida for the disclosure of a reflection type
display that uses ambient light with a screen brightness between 30 and
4,000 nits (id. at 6-7). The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have
been obvious to have combined HI with Wurzelbacher and D'Urso and
Lazarovich and Yoshida because it would have more efficiently created a
rugged device." (Id. at 7; see also Ans. 3--4.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Panasonic HI relates to the "Panasonic Toughbook HI Rugged
Mobile Clinical Assistant," which includes the following durability
4
Appeal2015-003824
Application 12/780,021
features: (i) "3-foot drop approved"; (ii) "Rain-, spill-, dust- and
vibration-resistant"; (iii) and AC adaptor with "Auto sensing/switching
worldwide power supply"; and (iv) "Daylight-readable 10.4" dual touch
display" with "500 nit LCD brightness."
Wurzelbacher relates to "to a protective shell for netbook or
notebook computers." (Col. 1, 11. 15-17.) Wurzelbacher explains that an
"all aluminum shell" (col. 6, 11. 48--49) provides "a hard shell enclosure
with rugged functional protection" (col. 6, 1. 44). Thus, Wurzelbacher
teaches the limitation "a rugged outer casing constructed of aluminum
alloy."
D 'Urso relates to "preventing smudges including oils and dust from
collecting on the displays," for example, portable electronic device
displays. (i-f l.) D 'Urso explains that layer 604 formed on substrate 602
"which is both hydrophobic and oleophobic that helps prevent smudges."
(i-f 37; see also Fig. 6.) Thus, D'Urso teaches the limitation "a touch-
screen interface with an oleophobic coating."
Lazarovich relates to electrical power distribution, "particularly to
arc fault detection/protection." (i-f l.) Figure 2 of Lazarovich illustrates
solid state switching control (SSPC) 300a, which includes temperature
sensor 312 and overcurrent protection unit 326. (i-f 16.) Thus, Lazarovich
teaches the limitation "at least one thermal sensor and at least one over-
current sensor."
Yoshida relates to "a display device using ambient light and a
lighting panel." (Col. 1, 11. 6-7.) Yoshida explains that a reflection type
display device is a device that uses ambient light for the display. (Col. 1,
11. 23-25.) Yoshida further explains that the screen brightness of the
5
Appeal2015-003824
Application I2/780,02 I
display device can range from "about 30 nit at an environmental
illumination of 50 lx, for example, under a streetlight in the nighttime" to
"about I200 nit at an environmental illumination of 30000 lx, for
example, under a tree in a fine weather period." (Col. 24, 11. 38--46.)
Thus, Yoshida teaches the limitations "a luminance of between 800-I200
candela per square meter" and "an ambient light sensor which adjusts an
intensity of the backlighting of the display in relation to an amount of
ambient light proximate the display."
The combination of Panasonic HI, D 'Urso, Lazarovich, and
Yoshida is nothing more than incorporating: (i) the known all aluminum
shell of Wurzelbacher, (ii) the known oleophobic layer of D'Urso, (iii) the
known thermal sensor and the known overcurrent protection unit of
Lazarovich, and (iv) the known reflection type display of Yoshida that
uses ambient light with a screen brightness between 30 and 4,000 nits
with the known Panasonic Toughbook HI Rugged Mobile Clinical
Assistant having similar durability features, to yield predictable results.
See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 4I6 (2007) ("The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to
be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). Thus,
we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 3--4) that
modifying Panasonic HI to incorporate the features of Wurzelbacher,
D 'Urso, Lazarovich, and Y oshid would have been obvious.
Appellant argues that "there is simply no clear articulation or
explicit analysis supporting the Office Action's rationale that this
proposed combination leads to a more efficient creation of the already
rugged device." (Br. 6.) However, as discussed previously, the
6
Appeal2015-003824
Application 12/780,021
combination of Panasonic H 1, Wurzelbacher, D' Urso, Lazarovich, and
Yoshida is the combination of known elements that does no more than
yield predictable results. In particular, the Examiner's modification of
Panasonic H 1 incorporates the specific durability features of
Wurzelbacher, D 'Urso, Lazaro vi ch, and Yoshida into Panasonic H 1,
which merely describes general durability features. In other words, as
articulated by the Examiner, such modifications of Panasonic HI "more
efficiently created a rugged device." (Final Act. 7.)
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Panasonic H 1,
Wurzelbacher, D'Urso, Lazarovich, and Yoshida to reject independent
claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1-3, 6,
8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 10--13
We are further unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments (Br. 6-7)
that the Examiner improperly combined Long, D 'Urso, Microsoft XP, and
Yoshida.
The Examiner acknowledged that Long does not disclose the
limitations "an oleophobic coating" (Final Act. 10), "providing an overlay
superimposed over the construction related document on the screen of the
mobile device" (id.), and "adjusting an intensity of the backlighting of the
screen in relation to an amount of ambient light proximate the screen,
wherein a luminance of the screen is between 800-1200 candela per
square meter (id. at 10). However, the Examiner relied upon D 'Urso for
the disclosure of an oleophobic layer that prevents smudges and relied
7
Appeal2015-003824
Application 12/780,021
upon Microsoft XP for the "Show Grid" feature in Microsoft Paint. (Id. at
10.) The Examiner further relied upon Yoshida for the disclosure of a
reflection type display that uses ambient light with a screen brightness
between 30 and 4,000 nits. (Id. at 11-12.) The Examiner concluded that
"[i]t would have been obvious to have combined the teachings of Long
and D 'Urso with that of Windows XP and Yoshida because it would have
more easily allowed for editing documents." (Final Act. 12; see also
Ans. 5---6.) We agree with the Examiner.
Long relates to online document management, in particular,
"distributing and processing orders for construction documents." (i-f 2.)
Long explains that "computing device 16 allows the user to perform
various operations associated with a document including, but not limited
to, storing, viewing, updating, editing, printing and requesting prints of
the document 12" (i-f 30) and computing device 16 can be laptop computer
or hand held computer having a touch screen (i-f 32).
Microsoft XP relates to "Microsoft Paint," a program which allows
a user to produce pictures or edit existing ones. (P. 1, para. 1.) Microsoft
Paint includes a "Displaying the Grid" feature, explained as "[ w ]hen you
are doing accurate drawing or edits like the above, it's useful to be able to
see the actual grid." (P. 16, para. 1.) Thus, Microsoft XP teaches the
limitations "providing an overlay superimposed over the ... document."
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating: (i) the oleophobic layer of D'Urso, (ii) the "Displaying the
Grid" feature of Microsoft XP, and (iii) the reflection type display of
Yoshida that uses ambient light with a screen brightness between 30 and
4,000 nits with Long would improve Long by providing a touch screen
8
Appeal2015-003824
Application 12/780,021
that is smudge resistant, can display a grid to improve the accuracy when
editing drawings, and can operate with ambient light at a brightness
between 30 nits and 1,2000 nits. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application
is beyond his or her skill."). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Final
Act. 12; see also Ans. 5-6) that modifying Long to incorporate the
features of D 'Urso, Microsoft XP, and Yoshida would have been obvious.
Appellant argues that "this conclusory statement ["because it would
have more easily allowed for editing documents"] is not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, as this conclusion is not
supported by any evidence on the record." (Br. 6-7.) However, as
discussed previously, the combination of Long, D'Urso, Microsoft XP,
and Yoshida is the improvement of a similar device in the same way as in
the prior art. In particular, the Examiner's modification of Long
incorporates the advantageous features of D 'Urso, Microsoft XP, and
Yoshida into the computing device 16 of Long, having a touch screen, to
facilitate the editing of construction documents. In other words, as
articulated by the Examiner, such modification of Long "easily allowed
for editing documents" on the touch screen. (Final Act. 12.)
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Long, D 'Urso,
Microsoft XP, and Yoshida to reject independent claims 10-13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 10-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal2015-003824
Application 12/780,021
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, and 8-13 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
10