Ex Parte Venkatasubramanian

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

13235022 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/235,022 09/16/2011
28289 7590 03/28/2016
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P,C
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BL VD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sathya Vagheeswar Venkatasubramanian
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.
2258-111732 8598
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SATHYA VAGHEESWAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN
Appeal2014-006621
Application 13/235,022 1
Technology Center 2600
Before KEVIN C. TROCK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--26, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicates the real party in interest is Bombardier Transportation
GmbH. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006621
Application 13/235,022
Invention
The claims are directed to communication systems and, more
particularly, to a method of passive or interactive communication with
passengers of a train or people mover. Spec. i-f 3.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of image display on one or more platform doors
of a passenger platform of a train or people mover station, the
method comprising:
(a) providing an image projector positioned to project a
first image on one or more platform doors disposed between a
passenger platform of a train or people mover station and a
pathway of the train or people mover, wherein the image
projector is positioned on the pathway side of the one or more
platform doors; and
(b) causing the image projector to back project the first
image for display on the one or more platform doors, wherein the
first image is either a single image or one image of a plurality of
images.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 12-17, and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koshiyama et al. (US 2008/0122798
Al, published May 29, 2008) and Choi (US 2005/0248735 Al, published
Nov. 10, 2005).
Claims 10, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koshiyama, Choi, and Iwamoto et al., (US
2001/0028344 Al, published Oct. 11, 2001).
2
Appeal2014-006621
Application 13/235,022
ANALYSIS
With respect to Appellant's claimed invention, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, Koshiyama teaches:
a method of image display on a platform door that separates a
passenger platform of a train or people mover station from a
pathway of the train or people mover (Figure 29 illustrates ...
automatic doors 212 and 214. In addition, [0168] refers to
embodiments of the information display [that] are applicable to
a display device for [a] control panel installed in any
transportation. Therefore, the doors depicted in [F]igure 29 can
be installed in a train environment, where an inner region ... can
be considered a people mover region, and an outer region ... can
be considered a passenger platform region), the method
comprising: (a) positioning to project an image toward a platform
door disposed between a passenger platform of a train or people
mover station and a pathway of the train or people mover (Figure
19 illustrates two display elements 12 between an inner region
and outer region ... ); (b) coupling to the image display apparatus
(Figure 24, display apparatus 1) a controller (Figure 24, control
processing circuit 100) that is programmed to cause the display
apparatus to back project the image toward the piatform door
([O 165] and [F]igure 29 refer to a warning display displayed on
display element 12); and ( c) providing an input to the controller
which is responsive to a signal produced via the input for
executing the program to cause the display apparatus to back
project the image toward the platform door for display on the
platform door ([00165-0166] refers to two inputs in order to
display a warning representation and an advice for touching the
sensor), wherein the image is either a single image or one image
of a plurality of images (Figure 29 illustrates a plurality of
images 12).
Final Act. 5, 6; Ans. 6.
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Choi teaches:
3
Appeal2014-006621
Application 13/235,022
a multi-direction image viewing system, which includes an
image projector ... (Figure 9a illustrates projector 2 installed on
the ceiling of the train station).
Ans. 7.
The Examiner concludes, therefore, that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to
incorporate an image projector as taught by Choi into Koshiyama, with the
benefit that when the train enters the subway station, the consumers cannot
view the display. Final Act. 6, 7; Ans. 7, 8 (citing Choi i-f 22).
Appellant contends, however, that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: (1) Koshiyama is not relevant art;
(2) the references alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest certain
limitations; (3) it is not clear how the references would be combined; (4) the
combination of references would change a principle of operation; ( 5) there is
no motivation to combine; ( 6) teaching away; (7) not obvious to rearrange in
the manner suggested; and (8) the combination would result in an
inoperative device. App. Br. 4--10.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant's arguments the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the findings and the reasons set
forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for
emphasis as follows.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
4
Appeal2014-006621
Application 13/235,022
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In identifying a
reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner must show some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
Moreover, a reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under§
103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F .2d 656,
658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior
art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the
inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Klein, 64 7
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments concerning the
sufficiency of the prior art or the combination thereof, but find each of the
arguments unpersuasive of Examiner error.
For example, Appellant argues that Koshiyama is not relevant prior art.
App. Br. 5. However, as noted above, a reference qualifies as prior art for a
determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. If
a reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention,
regardless of the problem being addressed, it qualifies as prior art. In re
Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, Koshiyama relates to
information displays with proximity detection performance having a display
device that displays image information. Koshiyama, Abstract. Appellant's
5
Appeal2014-006621
Application 13/235,022
invention relates to communication systems, in particular, to methods of
passive or interactive communication, including image displays. Spec. i-fi-13,
11. We find that Koshiyama, therefore, is from the same field of endeavor
as the Appellant's claimed invention, communication and information
display systems.
With respect to the specific teachings of the prior art, Appellant argues
the term "back project" has a meaning known in the art, and that "back
project" or "back projection" is a method of projecting pictures onto a
translucent screen so that they are viewed from the opposite side. Reply Br.
2. Appellant then argues that Figure 25 of Koshiyama, cited by the
Examiner as teaching back projection of an image toward a platform door,
instead discloses "display 12 located on the back of transparent glass 204."
Id. Appellant argues "display 12 passing an image through a transparent
glass 204 is not back projection. Specifically, transparent glass 204 is not
translucent whereupon an image will actually be displayed on the
transparent glass." Id. We disagree with Appellant's arguments.
First, the term "translucent" does not appear in any of the claims.
Second, the material composition of the platform doors is not restricted by
the independent claims as long as an image may be displayed on them.
Third, the Specification does not provide a special definition for the term
"back project". The Specification does, however, explain that "at least a
part of each plaiform door where the first image is back projected can be
clear, opaque, or include a film that is switchable between clear and opaque.
Spec. i-f 12 (emphasis added). Because the Specification explains that the
part of the door used to back project an image may be "clear," Appellant's
argument that back projection requires use of a translucent material is
unpersuasive. Moreover, Appellant's argument that Koshiyama cannot
6
Appeal2014-006621
Application 13/235,022
teach back projection because Koshiyama arguably uses transparent (clear)
glass, is similarly unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Koshiyama and Choi teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claims 1, 12, and 19. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejection of these claims.
Appellant has not presented timely, separate substantive arguments
with respect to claims 2, 4--11, 13-18, and 20-26. 2 Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2012).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4--26.
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
2 Appellant presents arguments regarding dependent claims 7, 16, and 24,
for the first time in the Reply Brief. See Reply. Br. 5-6. Such arguments,
however, are not entitled to consideration because Appellant has not
provided a showing of good cause explaining why the arguments could not
have been presented in the Appeal Brief.
7