James Frederick. Krier et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2019

14689515 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2019)

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.
14/689,515 04/17/2015 James Frederick Krier 46107-02160 (V214-0031) 1071
156760 7590 10/21/2019
Quinn IP Law / Visteon
21500 Haggerty Rd, Ste 300
Northville, MI 48167
EXAMINER
SAWDON, ALICIA JANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2019 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):
adomagala@quinniplaw.com
usdocketing@quinniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES FREDERICK KRIER and ROBERT EDWARD BELKE
____________

Appeal 2018-008785
Application 14/689,515
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 17–20. Appeal Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Visteon
Global Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008785
Application 14/689,515

2
The invention relates to a lens assembly for an electronic display.
Spec. ¶ 13. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter claimed and is reproduced
below:
1. A lens assembly for an electronic display, comprising:

a first frame piece with a first edge on a direction in which a
viewer of the electronic display would face, the first edge forming a
first angle with a second edge;

a second frame piece with a third edge on the direction in which
a viewer of the electronic display would face, the third edge forming a
second angle with a fourth edge;

a lens with a first lens edge facing the viewer, a second lens
edge and third lens edge connected to the first lens edge and forming a
first and second lens angle, respectively;

a first adhesive layer placed between the second edge and the
second lens edge to attach the first frame piece to the lens; and

a second adhesive layer placed between the fourth edge and the
third lens edge to attach the second frame piece to the lens,

wherein a shape of the lens is a trapezoidal prism, and the first
and second adhesive layers are placed on the non-parallel sides of the
trapezoidal prism.

Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action:
I. Claims 1–4 and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Uken (US 2006/0255960 A1, published November 16,
2006) and Lo (US 2005/0117234 A1, published June 2, 2005).

II. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Uken, Lo, and Sudoh (US 2011/0065051, published March 17, 2011).
Appeal 2018-008785
Application 14/689,515

3

III. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Uken, Lo, and Ace (US 4,679,918, issued July 14, 1987).

OPINION2
After review of the respective positions that Appellant and the
Examiner present, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of
claims 1–6 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Appellant
provides in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. We add the following for
emphasis.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a lens assembly for an electronic
display requiring a shaped lens adhered to frame pieces.
The Examiner finds Uken discloses a lens assembly that differs from
the claimed invention in that Uken does not teach the claimed shaped lens.
Final Act. 3–4. To address the missing feature, the Examiner finds that (1) a
change of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have found obvious to make absent persuasive evidence and,
alternatively, (2) Lo discloses a rear view mirror which contains a large
trapezoidal reflective surface. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shape
Uken’s lens as claimed, based on the above findings, to achieve an image
that is undistorted in the vertical direction, as taught by Lo. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that (1) the shape of the lens is not merely an
arbitrary design choice because the difference is not only one of shape but
also a difference of adhesive location (Appeal Br. 5) and (2) Lo discloses a

2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
Appeal 2018-008785
Application 14/689,515

4
rear view mirror that contains a large trapezoidal reflective surface (Appeal
Br. 6; Lo ¶ 7). Appellant contends that the Examiner does not explain how a
trapezoidal shape can be considered the shape of a “prism,” within the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, as it appears to refer only to
the shape of the front surface of the mirror. Appeal Br. 6–7.
We agree with Appellant that there is reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness. “[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner contends that modifying Uken’s prismatic lens to be
trapezoidal in shape results in benefits and the placement of the adhesive
would naturally flow from the shape of the lens. Ans. 12. However, the
Examiner has not directed us to any portion of the prior art that supports
adequately the Examiner’s contention that one skilled in the art would
modify Uken’s lens to be shaped as claimed. In fact, Lo discloses providing
a trapezoidal section defined by imaginary boundary lines as part of the
reflective surface formed on the lens. Lo ¶¶ 21, 24. The Examiner has not
explained adequately why one skilled in the art would shape a lens based on
a trapezoidal portion of a reflective layer to arrive at the claimed lens from
the teachings of the prior art. In addition, the Examiner does not explain
why Lo’s trapezoidal shape would be suitable for Uken’s lens. Thus, the
Examiner does not provide the requisite rational underpinning explaining
Appeal 2018-008785
Application 14/689,515

5
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed
invention from the teachings of the cited art.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of
claims 1–6 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Appellant
presents and we give above.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 and
17–20
103 Uken, Lo  1–4 and
17–20
5 103 Uken, Lo, Sudoh  5
6 103 Uken, Lo, Ace  6
Overall
Outcome
1–6,
17–20

REVERSED