Ex Parte Vitito

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

11153411 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111153,411 06/16/2005
22150 7590 04/01/2016
F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC
130 WOODBURY ROAD
WOODBURY, NY 11797
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher J. Vitito
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.
8002A-271 T (VIT) 1036
EXAMINER
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
mail@chauiplaw.com
garramone@chauiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. VITITO
Appeal2014-004575
Application 11/153,411
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18-21, 27, and 29, which
constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to a vehicle entertainment
system. (Spec. 2.) Claim 1, which is representative, reads:
Appeal2014-004575
Application 11/153,411
1. An entertainment system, comprising:
a video system comprising a video monitor disposed on a
front surface of the video system, a video source, a
multifunctional controller comprising a plurality of control
buttons disposed along an outer surface of the video system and
configured to control the entertainment system, and a pivotal
coupling member comprising a protruding member having a
first electrical connection, wherein the protruding member is
disposed in a center area of an end of the video system; and
a cradle secured within a ceiling of an automobile, and
compnsmg:
a primary recess having an opening substantially parallel
with the ceiling and shaped and dimensioned to receive the
front surface of the video system while the video system is in
an upward position;
a secondary recess recessed within the primary recess and
having a second electrical connection, wherein the secondary
recess is shaped and dimensioned for selectively receiving the
protruding member; and
a latch member and a release button disposed within the
primary recess and near the secondary recess, and configured to
selectively couple and release the video system to and from the
cradle,
wherein the video system is pivotally supported by the
cradle via the pivotal coupling member upon inserting the
protruding member into the secondary recess, and the video
system is electrically connected to the cradle via the first and
second electrical connections upon inserting the protruding
member into the secondary recess.
2
Appeal2014-004575
Application 11/153,411
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Rosen US 6,246,449 B 1
Tuccinardi (et al.) US 6,522,368 Bl
Tjalldin (et al.) US 6,768,896 B2
Sanders (et al.) US 2006/0109388 Al
REJECTIONS
June 12, 2001
Feb. 18,2003
July 27, 2004
May 25, 2006
(CIP of appl. filed Jan.
8,2002)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 21, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tuccinardi, Sanders, and Rosen.
(Final Act. 6.)
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tuccinardi, Sanders, Rosen, and Tjalldin. (Final Act. 10.)
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Tuccinardi
and Sanders teaches or suggests a secondary recess recessed within the
primary recess, as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner use impermissible hindsight to combine Tuccinardi
and Sanders to arrive at a secondary recess recessed within the primary
recess, as recited in claim 1?
To achieve a secondary recess recessed in the primary recess, did the
Examiner propose a modification that would require a substantial
3
Appeal2014-004575
Application 11/153,411
reconstruction and redesign ot~ and change the principle of operation ot~
Tuccinardi's video system?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Tuccinardi
and Sanders teaches or suggests a latch member and a release button
disposed within the primary recess and near the secondary recess, as recited
in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 7, 18, 19, 21, 27, and 29
Appellant argues the Examiner erred by not showing how an
ordinarily skilled artisan would combine Tuccinardi' s block 80 with
Sanders' primary recess to achieve "a secondary recess recessed within the
primary recess." (App. Br. 8 (emphasis original); Reply Br. 4.) Appellant
contends the Examiner has failed to articulate reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to change Tuccinardi' s design so block 80 would be recessed
within Sanders' primary recess. (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4--5.) Appellant
argues that, in fact, an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have modified
Tuccinardi's block 80 since that block is designed to attach directly to, and
extend below, a vehicle headliner, allowing a user to control, remove, and
utilize the video system without any modification of the block; therefore, no
modification would be necessary. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded by these arguments because they are not
directed to the actual bases of the Examiner's rejection. To arrive at the
recited secondary recess recessed within the primary recess, the Examiner
does not propose recessing Tuccinardi' s block 80 in Sanders' primary
4
Appeal2014-004575
Application 11/153,411
recess. The Examiner identifies wiring harness connector 92 and housing
panel 80 in Sanders as the pertinent primary and secondary recesses,
respectively: "Sanders et al. teaches ... a secondary recess [92] recessed
within primary recess .... " (Final Act. 2.) "Sanders et al. teaches ....
[ w] iring harness 92 (claimed: secondary recess) is disposed within ho [ u] sing
panel 80 (claimed: primary recess) as shown in figures 7A-C." (Id. at 3.)
In the Reply, Appellant argues that wiring harness connector 92 and
housing panel 80 do not teach the recited secondary recess recessed within a
primary recess because housing panel 80 (the identified primary recess) does
not receive the front surface of Sanders' video system. (Reply Br. 3.)
(Claim 1 recites "the primary recess ... shaped and dimensioned to receive
the front surface of the video system.") We will not consider this argument
because Appellant waited until the Reply to raise it. In the Final Action, the
Examiner found that wiring harness connector 92 and housing panel 80
teach the limitation-at-issue. (Final Act. 2-3.) A challenge to that finding
had to be presented in the Appeal Brief; as this challenge was raised for the
first time in the Reply, we would consider it only if responsive to an
argument in the Examiner's Answer or upon a showing of good cause. 37
C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2). Here, Appellant has not explained why, nor is it
apparent that, Appellant's argument challenging the Examiner's finding
concerning wiring harness connector 92 and housing panel 80 was
necessitated by a new point in the Answer or any other circumstance
constituting "good cause" for its belated presentation.
Appellant argues that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight to
combine Tuccinardi's block 80 with Sanders' primary recess to arrive at the
recited "secondary recess recessed within the primary recess." (App. Br. 9-
5
Appeal2014-004575
Application 11/153,411
10; Reply Br. 6.) Similarly, Appellant argues that the combination of block
80 with Sanders' primary recess would require a substantial reconstruction
and redesign of the video system of Tuccinardi and would change its basic
principle of operation. (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6-7.) We are not persuaded
by these arguments because they are not directed to the actual bases of the
Examiner's rejection. As discussed above, the Examiner did not combine
Tuccinardi's block 80 and Sanders' primary recess to arrive at the limitation-
at-issue.
Appellant argues that the combination of Sanders and Rosen does not
teach or suggest "a latch member and a release button disposed within the
primary recess and near the secondary recess," as recited in claim 1. (App.
Br. 11-16.) Appellant argues that the components that the Examiner
identifies as the latch member and release button are not disposed within the
primary recess of Sanders and are not near the secondary recess of
Tuccinardi. (Id. at 15.) We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, the
Examiner does not rely on the secondary recess of Tuccinardi for this
limitation. Instead, the Examiner identifies wiring harness 92 in Sanders as
the secondary recess. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 13.) Second, the Examiner
identifies detent 106 in Sanders as the recited latch member and retaining
finger 110 as the recited release button. (Final Act. 2, 4--5; Ans. 11.) The
Examiner explains that detent 106 and retaining finger 110 are both in
housing panel 80, the identified primary recess. (Final Act. 2, 4--5; Ans. 11-
12.) The Examiner further explains that both are near wiring harness 92 (the
identified secondary recess). (Final Act. 2; Ans. 12.) The Examiner finds
that these disclosures, combined, teach the limitation-at-issue. (Final Act. 2;
6
Appeal2014-004575
Application 11/153,411
Ans. 5.) Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in making
these findings.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 4, 5, 7,
18, 19, 21, 27, and 29, not separately argued. (App. Br. 16.)
Claim 20
Appellant presents the same arguments for Claim 20 as for claim 1.
(App. Br. 16.) Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the
rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18-21, 27, and
29 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
7