`
`EXHIBIT 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`90/011,861
`
`08/16/2011
`
`6700602
`
`BLAIR.001A
`
`3736
`
`27299
`
`7590
`
`06/30/2014
`
`GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
`16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
`SUITE 201
`SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
`
`EXAMINER
`
`RALIS, STEPHEN J
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`06/30/2014
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte SCOTT BLAIR
`Patent Owner, Appellant
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/01 1,861
`Patent US 6,700,602 Bl1
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
`
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`1 Issued Mar. 2, 2004 to Blair (hereinafter the “’602 Patent”).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/01 1,861
`
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`The Patent Owner (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 134(b) and 306 from the Final Rejection of claim 1.2 Br. 1.
`
`We reverse.
`
`We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant
`
`actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
`
`have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
`
`37 CPR. §41.37(c)(1)(vii).
`
`Appellant ’S Invention
`
`Appellant’s invention relates to a television system, for subway cars
`
`including a plurality of TV monitors mounted at the junction of the sidewall
`
`and ceiling. See generally ’602 Patent, Abstract.
`
`Claim 1 under reexamination is reproduced as follows:
`
`A subway car for mass transportation including
`1.
`longitudinal opposed sidewalls, a ceiling adjoining the
`sidewalls, a video display system comprising a plurality of
`video display monitors each having a video screen, and a video
`signal source unit operatively connected to said monitors,
`
`said monitors being spaced along the length of the car on
`opposed sides thereof, each of said monitor being mounted at
`
`2 In response to Patent Owner’s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination filed
`August 16, 2011, seeking reexamination of independent claim 1, an Order
`Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination was issued on September 29,
`2011, ordering reexamination of claim 1. During reexamination, Patent
`Owner presented new claims 8-30. Claims 2-7 are not subject to
`reexamination, claims 8-18, and 20-30 stand patentable and/or confirmed,
`and claim 19 is canceled. Final Action 2 (mailed Apr. 25, 2012); Advisory
`Action 2, 22-23 (mailed Jan. 16, 2013).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/01 1,861
`
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`the junction of the sidewall and ceiling, with the screen of the
`monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface
`structure of the car, and directed obliquely downwardly toward
`the car seats, so that each Video screen is readily Visible to
`passengers in the subway car.
`
`The Examiner ’S Rejections
`
`1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Minesaki (JP 63-125984, pub. May 30, 1988).
`
`2. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Amano (JP H2-223985, pub. Sept. 6, 1990).
`
`3. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Maekawa (JP H04-160991, pub. June 4, 1992) and
`
`Amano.
`
`4. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Minesaki and Moore (US 3,480,727, issued Nov.
`
`25, 1969).
`
`5. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Amano and Moore.
`
`6. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Maekawa, Amano, and Moore.
`
`7. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Shinagawa (JP S61-285490, pub. Dec. 16, 1986),
`
`Amano, and Moore.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/01 1,861
`
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Claim 1 rejected under 35 US. C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Minesaki
`
`Appellant argues, inter alia, that Minesaki fails to teach the limitation
`
`of “each of said monitor being mounted at the junction of a sidewall and
`
`ceiling” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 3). In particular, Appellant argues that
`
`“[w]hen the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is
`
`silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing
`
`features are of little value” (Br. 3 (quoting MPEP § 2125 (emphasis and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted)). See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia
`
`Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Appellant asserts that in
`
`Figure 2, the information transmission display parts J are shown as being
`
`curved along the top portion of the display and Minesaki provides no
`
`mention or explanation for this curvature in its specification, which would
`
`be unusual in that optically such a curve would distort the light rays
`
`emanating from the display in an inconsistent manner causing image
`
`distortion (Br. 3).
`
`We agree with Appellant’s argument. Figure 2 certainly shows the
`
`monitors are mounted at the sidewalls but it is unclear from the informal
`
`drawings whether the monitors necessarily extend at the junctions of the
`
`sidewalls and the ceilings. It could be that the monitors are merely on the
`
`sidewalls. “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
`
`circumstances is not sufficient” under anticipation principles. In re
`
`Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citations
`
`and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/01 1,861
`
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
`
`anticipated by Minesaki.
`
`Claim 1 rejected under 35 US. C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Amano
`
`Appellant argues that Amano fails to teach the limitation of “the
`
`screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface
`
`structure of the car” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 6). Appellant particularly
`
`argues that “substantially” cannot be construed so broadly as to read the
`
`term “flushed” completely out of the claim (Br. 6-7).
`
`We agree with Appellant’s argument. The term “substantially” is
`
`defined, in pertinent part, as “to a great extent or degree [.]” THE FREE
`
`DICTIONARY, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/substantially (last Visited
`
`June 26, 2014). Amano’s Figures 4-6 cited by the Examiner, especially
`
`looking at the side Views of the drawings show the screens of the monitors
`
`being located at quite some distance away from the surface structure of the
`
`car, and thus, not being reasonably “substantially” or to a great extent
`
`flashed against the surface (see for example, Amano’s Figure 4 reproduced
`
`below).
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows the side View of the screen extending some distance
`away from the surface of the car.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/01 1,861
`
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
`
`anticipated by Amano.
`
`Claim 1 rejected under 35 US. C. § 1 03 (a) as anpalenlable over
`Maekawa in View OfAmano
`
`Appellant argues, inter alia, that Maekawa’s Figure 2 shows the
`
`monitors on top of the surface structure of the car, and thus, Maekawa does
`
`not show the screens being sabstantiallyflashea’ against the car surface (Br.
`
`9- 10).
`
`We agree with Appellant. The term “flush” is described in pertinent
`
`part as “a surface exactly even with an adjoining one[.]” Vocabulary.com,
`
`http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/flush (last visited June 26, 2014). As
`
`stated supra, “substantially” means to a great extent, and thus, “substantially
`
`flush” would mean a surface which is to a great extent even with an
`
`adjoining one. Thus, we agree with Appellant that a screen located at a
`
`monitor on top of the surface of the car would not be substantially flushed
`
`against the car surface.
`
`Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
`
`obvious over Maekawa in view of Amano.
`
`Claim 1 rejected under 35 US. C. § 1 03 (a) as anpalenlable over
`Minesaki in View ofMoore
`
`Appellant repeats the same argument as that presented for claim 1 as
`
`anticipated by Minesaki as addressed supra (Br. 10-11).
`
`Accordingly, we reverse claim 1 for the same reasons as stated above.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/01 1,861
`
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`Claim 1 rejected under 35 US. C. § 1 03 (a) as anpalenlable over
`Amano in View ofMoore
`
`Appellant repeats the same argument as that presented for claim 1 as
`
`anticipated by Amano as addressed supra (Br. 11- 12).
`
`Thus, we reverse claim 1 for the same reasons as stated above.
`
`Claim 1 rejected under 35 US. C. § 103(a) as anpalenlable over
`Maekawa and/0r Shinagawa in View OfAmano and Moore
`
`Appellant repeats the same argument as that presented for claim 1 as
`
`anticipated by Amano as addressed supra (Br. 14).
`
`Thus, we reverse claim 1 for the same reasons as stated above.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
`
`rejecting claim 1.
`
`DECISION
`
`We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1.
`
`TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
`
`Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
`
`proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 CPR. § 41.50(f).
`
`REVERSED
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/01 1,861
`
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`msc
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
`16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
`
`SUITE 201
`
`SAN DIEGO CA 92127
`
`