Ex Parte Hot

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

13038113 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/038, 113 03/01/2011
14333 7590 09/20/2018
Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Liao, LLP
ONE PALMER SQUARE
SUITE 325
Princeton, NJ 08542
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alber Hot
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.
HOT/003CIP 8189
EXAMINER
BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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):
molech@meagheremanuel.com
14333-docket@meagheremanuel.eom
tmeagher@meagheremanuel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBER HOT
Appeal2017---005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, AMBER L. HAGY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-12, 14--17, and 19-25, which are all of the
pending claims. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Claims 13 and 18 have been canceled. (Final Act. 2; Br. 23, 24 (Claims
App'x).)
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he invention relates to the field of
electronic advertising systems and, more particularly, electronic advertising
systems targeting viewers at controlled traffic intersections." (Spec. 1: 11-
13.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 12, 19, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with the disputed limitations italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An Electronic Display Interface (EDI) apparatus adapted
for use at a traffic signal comprising at least one traffic light
providing respective traffic control indications to a traffic lane
approaching an intersection, the apparatus comprising:
a first display device visually aligned at least with a first
region of said traffic lane, said first region proximate a
corresponding traffic light;
a display controller, providing presentation of imagery
upon the first display device upon receiving an indication when
the corresponding traffic light is in a stop state of operation and
vehicles facing the traffic light in the respective traffic lane at
least within the first region have stopped moving; and
a network hotspot equipment generating a network
hotspot having a footprint overlapping a further EDI apparatus
at a neighboring traffic signal and forming a network connection
including at least one wireless link with a corresponding
equipment of said neighboring traffic signal;
said controller receiving at least one of traffic signal
control information for said traffic light and said presentation
imagery via said network connection with said neighboring
traffic signal.
2
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Haase
Ebert
Lo
Crolley et al. ("Crolley")
US 2005/0231385 Al
US 2006/0143082 Al
US 2006/0202861 Al
US 2010/0088181 Al
Rejections2
Oct. 20, 2005
June 29, 2006
Sept. 14, 2006
Apr. 8, 2010
Claims 1--4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 19--24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ebert and Lo. (Final Act. 6-
19.)
Claims 5-8, 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Ebert, Lo, and Crolley. (Final Act. 19--31.)
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ebert, Lo, and Haase. (Final Act. 31-34.)
ISSUES 3
1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ebert discloses
"providing presentation of imagery upon the first display device upon
2 All rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States
Code in effect prior to the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act of 2011.
3 Appellant collectively argues the rejection of all claims with regard to the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
Separate patentability is not argued for independent claims 12, 19, or 20, or
for any of the dependent claims. Therefore, based on Appellant's
arguments, we decide the appeal of all pending claims based on claim 1
alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
receiving an indication when the corresponding traffic light is in a stop state
of operation and vehicles facing the traffic light in the respective traffic lane
at least within the first region have stopped moving," as recited in
independent claim 1.
2. Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ebert and Lo teaches or suggests "a network hotspot equipment generating a
network hotspot having a footprint overlapping a further EDI apparatus at a
neighboring traffic signal and forming a network connection including at
least one wireless link with a corresponding equipment of said neighboring
traffic signal," as recited in independent claim 1.
3. Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ebert discloses "said
controller receiving at least one of traffic signal control information for said
traffic light and said presentation imagery via said network connection with
said neighboring traffic signal," as recited in independent claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
contentions and arguments and we adopt as our own the findings and
conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken. We highlight the following for emphasis. 4
The Examiner finds Ebert teaches the limitations of claim 1 (Final
Act. 6--8), except for "a network hotspot equipment ... ," for which the
4 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellant did not make are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
Examiner relies on Ebert in combination with Lo (Final Act. 8-10.)
Appellant raises several alleged deficiencies in the Examiner's findings,
which we address in tum below.
A. " ... receiving an indication when ... vehicles ... have stopped
. " movzng
Appellant argues the Examiner's findings are in error because "Ebert
does not disclose determining that a vehicle is stopped, only that a vehicle is
'present.'" (Br. 10.) Appellant further contends
(Id.)
Ebert is unconcerned with determining whether a vehicle is
moving or stopped, or with adapting the display of
advertisements to vehicle occupants in response to such a
determination. Thus, even if a traffic intersection light is still red,
Ebert will display advertising distracting to a driver of a detected
or 'present' vehicle moving or continuing to move through the
intersection.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments, which are
inconsistent with the disclosures of Ebert. Contrary to Appellant's
assertions, Ebert does disclose determining whether a vehicle is stopped. In
particular, Ebert discloses a "presence detector," such as a heat sensor that
may sense the heat of a vehicle engine, or, alternatively, a "camera ... and
image recognition software," wherein such a presence detector "is able to
detect that the vehicle ... is currently waiting in front of the traffic
light .... " (Ebert ,r 75 (emphasis added).) Thus, as the Examiner finds, and
we agree, Ebert explicitly discloses a presence detector to confirm that a
vehicle is stopped and waiting at the red light. (Ans. 4 (citing Ebert ,r,r 74--
76).) Appellant's further assertion that Ebert's presence detector may be
triggered by a vehicle "running a red light" (Br. 11) is not supported by
Ebert's disclosure and is, in fact, inconsistent with Ebert's disclosure of the
5
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
presence detector first determining that a vehicle is "waiting" at the red light
before the advertisements are shown. (Ebert ,r,r 7 5-7 6. )5
B. "network hotspot equipment ... forming a network connection
including at least one wireless link with a corresponding equipment of
said neighboring traffic signal"
The Examiner finds Ebert does not explicitly disclose a "network
hotspot equipment," but finds:
Ebert does teach an inventive system in which an advertisement
presentation node controls presentation of at least one
advertisement. An advertisement presentation node may control
one or more electronic displays of a traffic light environment that
are placed in specific distances from each other along the same
street or route. An advertisement presentation node may belong
to one or more advertisement presentation node networks (i.e.
individual presentation nodes are overlapped by a larger
encompassing network). An advertisement presentation node
may contain or be affiliated with a multitude of advertisement
presentation nodes that are connected via one or more
communication networks including a private network.
(Final Act. 8-9 (citing Ebert ,r,r 26-35).)
The Examiner further finds:
Lo teaches a traffic light advertisement system in which a
plurality of traffic lights at a plurality of intersections are
connected via exemplary network connections. As a result of
this network connection, the traffic light can be useful in
additional ways, such as being used as a wireless Internet
transmitter station or hotspot.
(Id. at 9 (citing Lo ,r,r 27-34).) We agree the Examiner's findings are
supported by the cited disclosures.
5 Even if we were to assume, solely for the sake of argument, that Ebert's
detector does provide a false positive when a vehicle runs a red light, that
alleged situation would not negate the fact that Ebert also detects stopped
vehicles.
6
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
Appellant argues the Examiner's findings are in error because "[t]here
is no teaching in Ebert or Lo of communications networks between
neighboring traffic signals, much less communications between neighboring
traffic signals via a network connection there between formed using
overlapping wireless hotspots." (Br. 13-14.)
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner does not rely on either
reference individually as teaching this disputed limitation, but relies on the
combined teachings of Ebert and Lo. It is well established that one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1986). As the Examiner finds, and we agree, "[t]he provided teachings of
Lo clearly illustrate[] that a plurality of traffic lights at a plurality of
intersections are connected via exemplary network connections, among
includes wireless hotspot technology." (Ans. 7 (citing Lo ,r,r 27-34).) The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, "Ebert already discloses the
advertisement presentation nodes can be part of a larger encompassing
network (i.e. neighboring traffic lights are all connected by a larger
network)" and "Ebert already implement[s] Wi-Fi technology in [its]
network implement[ation]." (Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 7.) The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of these references "thereby providing
Wi-Fi functionality at both individual intersections[,] as well as between
intersections along various routes." (Final Act. 10.)
7
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
C. "said controller receiving at least one of traffic signal information for
said traffic light and said presentation imagery via said network
connection with said neighboring traffic signal"
Appellant argues the Examiner's findings regarding the final
limitation of claim 1 are in error because "[ t ]here is no suggestion in Ebert
of communications between two advertisement presentation nodes, and
certainly no suggestion of such communication being used to by one
presentation node to transmit 'traffic signal control information toward
another presentation node." (Br. 12.) Rather, according to Appellant,
"Ebert describes a communication network 302 facilitating communications
only between an advertisement presentation node 308 and an advertisement
service 300." (Id. at 11-12.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments, which are
inconsistent with the disclosures of Ebert. As the Examiner finds, and we
agree:
It is clear from the disclosure of Ebert that the "advertisement
presentation node" is a device that actually controls the
presentation of advertisements, and this node is actually located
at the traffic light intersection and determines whether vehicles
are stopped at a red light and read for an advertisement
presentation. The node is not merely a client device that is only
communicating with the server side advertising service. In fact,
Ebert establishes that the advertisement presentation node can
not only control multiple electronic displays along a street or
route, but the node can contain or be affiliated with a multitude
of presentation nodes that are connected via a separate network
([0026-35]). As such, the disclosure of Ebert clearly establishes
nodes at different traffic intersections communicating with each
other, contrary to Appellant's assertions.
(Ans. 6-7 (citing Ebert ,r,r 26-35).)
8
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
In particular, Ebert discloses "[a]n advertisement presentation node
may control one or more electronic displays[,]" such as "two or more
electronic displays that are placed in specific distances from each other
along the same street or route." (Ebert ,r 34.) Ebert further discloses the
advertisement presentation nodes "may belong to one or more advertisement
presentation node networks ... that are connected via one or more
communication networks, particularly including, but not limited to, a private
network, for example." (Id. at ,r 35.)
D. Additional Arguments
Appellant raises several additional arguments generally against the
Examiner's obviousness rejection, none of which we find persuasive of
error. (Br. 14--1 7.) Appellant first argues the cited references actually
"teach away from the notion of detecting that a vehicle has stopped moving
in front of the light and using that information," asserting:
The references are directed to maximizing advertising display
time by displaying advertisement when a traffic light is red,
irrespective of whether or not a vehicle is stopped in front of the
traffic light. Neither of the references are directed to inhibiting
advertisement in response to a moving vehicle in front of the red
light.
(Id. at 15.)
We disagree. A reference may be said to "teach away" when "a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (emphasis added). Appellant
points to no disclosure in either reference that discourages triggering display
of an advertisement based on whether a vehicle is stopped at the light.
9
Appeal2017-005683
Application 13/03 8, 113
Indeed, Appellant's contention characterizes the references as neutral in that
regard, stating the references "are not at all concerned about" whether any
vehicles are stopped. (Br. 15.) Moreover, as noted above, Appellant's
characterization of the cited references is incorrect.
Appellant also asserts the Examiner's rejection "compensates for gaps
and ambiguities in the teachings of the prior art by resorting to hindsight."
(Br. 16.) We disagree that the Examiner has engaged in improper hindsight
reconstruction or has erred in combining the teachings of the cited
references. The Examiner has provided an articulated reason for combining
Ebert and Lo that includes a rational underpinning. (See Ans. 9--10; Final
Act. 9--10.) We further note that Appellant bases the contention of "gaps
and ambiguities" on the same premise that we have rejected above-namely,
that Ebert and Lo allegedly lack disclosure "whether adjoining traffic lights
can communicate with each other." (See Br. 16-17.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2-12, 14--
17, and 19--25, which are not separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12, 14--17, and 19-25 are
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
10