14700854 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

Ex Parte Hiraoka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2018

14700854 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/700,854 04/30/2015 Osamu Hiraoka 39083 7590 09/26/2018 KENEALY VAIDYA LLP 3000 K Street, N.W. Suite 310 Washington, DC 20007 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. 6006-0170 1200 EXAMINER DEMETER, HILINA K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2018 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 OSAMU HIRAOKA and Y ASUSHI KAT A Y AMA Appeal2018-003032 Application 14/700,854 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of Claim 1. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 2 1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Yazaki Corporation. App. Br. 3. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 1, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed January 16, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed November 9, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed February 21, 2017, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed April 30, 2015, "Spec.") for their respective details. Appeal2018-003032 Application 14/700,854 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a system to display a vehicular speed. See Claim 1. INVENTION An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of the sole claim in the Application, Claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A display system installed in a vehicle, comprising: a display unit for displaying a deviation amount of a current running speed of the vehicle from a speed limit set for an area where the vehicle is currently being driven, wherein the display unit outputs a value of the deviation amount as a ratio of a speed difference to the speed limit on a scale display in which a point where the ratio is zero is used as an origin, with a scale division indicating a predetermined range of values of the deviation amount, where the speed difference is the speed limit subtracted from the current running speed, and wherein the display unit has a running speed display area which outputs information representing the current running speed of the vehicle and a deviation amount display area which outputs the deviation amount juxtaposed with the running speed display area. Lash, et al., Pham References and Rejection US 6,728,605 B2 Apr. 27, 2004 US 2010/0121526 Al May 13, 2010 Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a), as being obvious over Pham and Lash. Final Act. 4--8. 2 Appeal2018-003032 Application 14/700,854 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejection of Claim 1 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4--12. CLAIM 1: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PHAM AND LASH. Ratio of a speed difference to a speed limit. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "wherein the display unit outputs a value of the deviation amount as a ratio of a speed difference to the speed limit on a scale display in which a point where the ratio is zero is used as an origin." As paraphrased by the Examiner, Pham teaches the claimed limitation: where the driver would like to set the threshold speed fifteen percent below the legal speed limit, the threshold speeds along the route from point A to point D would be 34 mph. Thus, if the vehicle speed exceeds 34 mph in this interval, the warning mechanism is triggered to remind the driver to reduce the vehicle's speed. Final Act. 5. Appellants contend Pham's invention "allows the driver to set the threshold speed (warning speed) for generating a warning." App. Br. 8 ( quoting Pham ,r 30) ( emphasis omitted). Appellants argue the claim recites a ratio R where R = (actual speed- speed limit)/ speed limit, whereas Pham compares the actual speed to a threshold speed set by the driver. App. Br. 10-11. The Examiner finds the claimed speed ratio is implicitly calculated in Pham. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Pham teaches the driver sets the threshold speed. Id. The Examiner further finds Pham determines the 3 Appeal2018-003032 Application 14/700,854 percentage difference between the speed limit and the threshold speed, thus implicitly determining the ratio of a speed difference to a speed limit. Id. Appellants reply that the ratio taught by Pham is not based on the current running speed of the vehicle. Reply Br. 2. We agree. As found by the Examiner (see Ans. 4), Pham teaches a ratio, which we designate R1, relating to a threshold speed: R1 = ( threshold speed - speed limit) / speed limit. In contrast, Appellants claim a ratio, which we designate R2, relating to an actual speed: R2 = (actual speed- speed limit)/ speed limit. The Record before us does not show the prior art teaches each claimed limitation. Therefore, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 1. DECISION The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 4