Ex Parte Schofield et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

14299409 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
14/299,409 06/09/2014 Kenneth Schofield MAG04 P-2331 3806
15671 7590 06/26/2017
Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Flory, LLP
2851 Charlevoix Dr., SE, Suite 207
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
EXAMINER
RAHAMAN, MOHAMMED S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
sytsma@glbf.com
patents @ glbf.com
clark@glbf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH SCHOFIELD, JOSHUA L. DE WARD,
PETER J. WHITEHEAD, and NIALL R. LYNAM
Appeal 2017-003196
Application 14/299,409
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving Appellants’
claims to an accessory system for a vehicle. The Examiner has rejected
Claims 1—23, all pending claims, as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 6, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
December 12, 2016), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed October 25, 2016), the
Final Action (mailed December 7, 2015), and the Specification (filed June 9,
2014).
Appeal 2017-003196
Application 14/299,409
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Claims 1—23, all the pending claims, are on appeal. Claims 1, 10, 15,
and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An accessory system for a vehicle, said accessory system
comprising:
an attachment member attached at a vehicle windshield;
an accessory module configured to detachably mount to
said attachment member;
said accessory module and said attachment member
configured so that when said accessory module
mounts to said attachment member, an electrical
element of said accessory module is biased toward
and against a surface of the vehicle windshield so
as to optically couple therewith;
wherein said electrical element comprises a camera
and wherein said camera comprises a CMOS
imaging array sensor and a lens;
wherein, with said accessory module mounted to
said attachment member, said camera has a forward
field of view through the vehicle windshield; and
wherein said camera is associated with at least one of (i) a
headlamp control system, (ii) a lane departure warning
system, (iii) an adaptive cruise control system, (iv) a sign
recognition system, (v) a night vision system, (vi) a
pedestrian detection system and (vii) a pre-crash
avoidance system.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Campbell (Campbell, et al., US 6,170,955 Bl; Jan. 9, 2001) and
2
Appeal 2017-003196
Application 14/299,409
Schofield (Schofield, et al., US 5,796,094, Aug. 18, 1998). Final Act.
4—8.
2. Claims 1—23 stand rejected under the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting, in an unspecified manner, over a
substantial plurality of patents and applications. Final Act. 8—13.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-23: Obviousness over Campbell and Schofield
Appellants argue all claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds Campbell substantially teaches the claimed
invention except Campbell fails to teach the claimed camera comprises a
CMOS imaging array sensor and a lens. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner
finds Schofield teaches a camera comprising a CMOS imaging array sensor
and a lens. Id.
A camera optically-coupled to a vehicle windscreen.
Appellants contend Campbell’s camera cannot optically couple to a
vehicle windscreen. App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, Campbell teaches
a mounting bracket that establishes and maintains an air gap between the
camera and the surface of the windshield. Id. Thus, appellants argue,
optical coupling cannot exist given Campbell’s air gap. Id. at 8.
The Examiner finds optical coupling does not require direct contact.
Ans. 7.
Appellants contend, contrary to the Examiner, that the claimed
“optically coupled” requires direct contact between the camera and the
3
Appeal 2017-003196
Application 14/299,409
windshield surface. Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec., 1131).1 We agree with
Appellants.
The Specification discloses:
as the accessory module is loaded toward and against the
windshield, the accessory 38 contacts the interior surface 12a of
the windshield 12 and is pressed against the surface via biasing
member 40, as shown in FIG. 8. The accessory 38 is thus
optically coupled or positively coupled to the windshield and
retained in intimate contact with the windshield.
Spec., 1113. We find, in view of that disclosure, that the claimed “optically
couple[d]” requires direct contact between the camera and the windshield
surface. As acknowledged by the Examiner, direct contact is not taught by
Campbell. See Ans. 8—9.
Claims 1-23: Nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
The claims stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-
type double patenting over a “large number of patent applications or patent
claims.” Final Act. 9. However, the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case because a “detailed analysis is deferred until patentable invention
is found.” Id. If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the
rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
1 The citation represents an inversion of the reference numerals as the text is
found at paragraph 113.
4
Appeal 2017-003196
Application 14/299,409
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 1—23 under the grounds of obviousness-type
double patenting is REVERSED.
REVERSED
5