2020003572 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2021)

YAZAKI CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 28, 2021

2020003572 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2021)

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. 15/285,995 10/05/2016 Masahiro Takamatsu 6006-0277 8413 39083 7590 07/28/2021 KENEALY VAIDYA LLP 3050 K Street, N.W. Suite 302 Washington, DC 20007 EXAMINER ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/28/2021 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): avaidya@kviplaw.com uspto@kviplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MASAHIRO TAKAMATSU, MASAHIDE NAGATA, and TAKAO KANAI ____________ Appeal 2020-003572 Application 15/285,995 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Yazaki Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-003572 Application 15/285,995 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to “head-up display (HUD) units for projecting images onto the front window of a vehicle . . . for displaying images around the sight line of the driver of the vehicle.” Spec. 1. In particular, an object of the present invention is to provide a display device capable of enhancing the design property of the display device and maintaining the attractive appearance around the instrument panel by not making the light source of the display device directly visible to the driver or the occupant. Spec. 2. Independent claims 1 and 7 are exemplary: 1. A display device, comprising: a display section for irradiating light to the windshield of a vehicle, and a surface panel positioned on a front side in a light irradiating direction of the display section and including a top surface and a bottom surface, the top constituting part of a surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle, wherein the surface panel includes a plurality of pores formed as openings extending through the surface panel from the top surface to the bottom surface in a direction connecting the display section to the windshield, and a light irradiating direction of the display section is set to a direction in which the light irradiated from the display section and reflected by the windshield is visually recognized by the driver such that the pores in the surface panel permit passage of light from the display section to the windshield while obscuring direct visibility of the display section by the driver. 7. A display device comprising: a display section for irradiating light to the windshield of a vehicle and the display section includes, Appeal 2020-003572 Application 15/285,995 3 a plurality of concave sections extending in the light irradiating direction, and each of the concave sections includes a bottom face, and a plurality of light sources, each of the light sources is disposed on the bottom face of a respective one of the concave sections; and a surface panel positioned on a front side in a light irradiating direction of the display section and constituting part of a surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle, wherein the surface panel includes a plurality of pores formed as openings extending through the surface panel and across each of the concave sections in a direction connecting the display section to the windshield, and a light irradiating direction of the display section is set to a direction in which the light irradiated from the display section and reflected by the windshield is visually recognized by the driver such that the pores in the surface panel permit passage of light from the display section to the windshield while obscuring direct visibility of the display section by the driver. References and Rejections2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 10 102(a)(1) Naoyuki (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2008068767 A, March 27, 2008) 2–4 103 Naoyuki and Kanamori ’476 (US 2012/0200476 A1, Aug. 9, 2012) 5–9, 11 103 Naoyuki and Inomata (US 2015/0234185 A1, Aug. 20, 2015) 12 103 Naoyuki and Kanamori ’394 (US 2001/0008394 A1, July 19, 2001) 13 103 Naoyuki, Inomata, Kanamori ’394 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated July 26, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) After Final Response dated Oct. 4, 2019 (“After Final Amendment”); (3) Advisory Action dated Nov. 19, 2019 (“Adv. Act.”); (4) Appeal Brief dated Jan. 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (5) Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 21, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (6) Reply Brief dated April 7, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-003572 Application 15/285,995 4 Procedural History The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Final Office Action. See Final Act. 2–5, 7–11. Following Appellant’s After Final Amendment, the Examiner issued an Advisory Action, which entered claim amendments that changed the claims’ scopes (Adv. Act. Box 7), but the Examiner did not issue any new ground of rejection. In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew previous rejections and issued new rejections against the newly amended claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (claims 1 and 10) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 (claims 2–9 and 11–13). Ans. 3–13, 15. Appellant responded to the new rejections in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 3–9. Because the Examiner withdrew the previous rejections (Ans. 15), we limit our review to the rejections presented in the Answer. ANALYSIS Anticipation We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Naoyuki disclose: a surface panel positioned on a front side in a light irradiating direction of the display section and including a top surface and a bottom surface, the top constituting part of a surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle, wherein the surface panel includes a plurality of pores formed as openings extending through the surface panel from the top surface to the bottom surface in a direction connecting the display section to the windshield, as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See Reply Br. 3–6. Appeal 2020-003572 Application 15/285,995 5 The Examiner cites Naoyuki’s instrument panel 12 for disclosing the claimed “surface panel.” Ans. 4. The Examiner’s findings about the “plurality of pores” (Ans. 4, 14–15) are unclear, but the Examiner appears to cite Naoyuki’s openings formed by shutter 5 (which includes louvers 51) for disclosing the claimed “plurality of pores.” See Ans. 4. We disagree with the Examiner. Naoyuki’s Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below: As shown in the above figures, the openings formed by the shutter 5 do not extend through the panel 12. See Reply Br. 4. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown the cited Naoyuki portions disclose “the surface panel includes a plurality of pores formed as openings extending through the surface panel,” as required by claim 1. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and corresponding dependent claim 10 for the same reason. Appeal 2020-003572 Application 15/285,995 6 Obviousness We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Naoyuki teach: a surface panel positioned on a front side in a light irradiating direction of the display section and constituting part of a surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle, wherein the surface panel includes a plurality of pores formed as openings extending through the surface panel and across each of the concave sections, as recited in claim 7 (emphases added). See Reply Br. 8. Similar to the findings above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner cites Naoyuki’s instrument panel 12 for teaching the claimed “surface panel,” and Naoyuki’s openings formed by shutter 5 (which includes louvers 51) for teaching the claimed “plurality of pores.” See Ans. 9. As discussed above, the openings formed by the shutter 5 do not extend through the panel 12. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown the cited Naoyuki portions teach “the surface panel includes a plurality of pores formed as openings extending through the surface panel,” as required by claim 7. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 7. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–6 and 12 (depending from claim 1) and dependent claims 8, 9, 11, and 13 (depending from claim 7). Although the Examiner cites additional references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner relies on Appeal 2020-003572 Application 15/285,995 7 Naoyuki in the same manner discussed above in the context of claims 1 and 7, and does not rely on the additional references in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of the underlying rejections of claims 1 and 7. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2–9 and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 10 102(a)(1) Naoyuki 1, 10 2–4 103 Naoyuki, Kanamori ‘476 2–4 5–9, 11 103 Naoyuki, Inomata 5–9, 11 12 103 Naoyuki, Kanamori ‘394 12 13 103 Naoyuki, Inomata, Kanamori ‘394 13 Overall Outcome 1–13 REVERSED