throbber
EXHIBIT 2003
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`BLAIROO 1A
`
`PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Patent Owner: Scott Blair
`
`Stephen J. Ralis
`Examiner:
`Filing Date: August 16, 2011
`For:
`SUBWAY TV MEDIA SYSTEM
`
`Control N0.:
`
`90/011,861
`
`Gr. Art Unit: 3992
`
`10
`
`APPEAL BRIEF PURSUANT TO 37 CFR 41.37
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`Dear Sir or Madam:
`
`In response to the Final Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination dated April 25, 2012
`(“Final Ex Part6 Office Action”) and the Advisory Action in Ex Parte Reexamination dated
`January 16, 2013 (“Ex Parte Advisory Action”), Patent Owner herein files an appeal brief for the
`above~identified application.
`
`Real Party in Interest
`
`Scott Blair (the Patent Owner for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,861) is the real
`party in interest.
`
`Related Appeals and Interferences
`
`Not Applicable.
`
`Status ofClaims
`
`Claims 1 — 18 and 20 — 30 are now pending in the application.
`
`Per the Ex Parte Advisory Action, Claim 1 stands rejected, Claims 2 _ 7 are not subject
`to reexamination and Claims 8 — 18 and 20 — 30 are patentable and/0r confirmed.
`
`Patent Owner herein explicitly appeals the rejection of Claim 1.
`
`Status ofAmendments
`
`Patent Owner has not submitted amendments to any of the claims subsequent to the Ex
`Parte Advisory Action (see also the response to the Final Ex Parte Office Action dated June 25,
`2012).
`
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
`
`Claim 1 -- Claim 1 discloses a subway car for mass transportation including longitudinal
`opposed sidewalls disclosed at, inter alia, FIGS. 1A and 18, as well as at FIG. 2, along with its
`accompanying disclosure of Patent Owner’s specification. The subway car includes a ceiling
`adjoining the sidewalls disclosed at, inter alia, FIG. 4a, along with its accompanying disclosure
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/01 1,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`at Col. 5, lines 35 — 49 of Patent Owner’s specification. The subway car also includes a Video
`display system comprising a plurality of Video display monitors each having a video screen
`disclosed at,
`inter alia, Col. 5,
`lines 35 — 49 and Col. 5,
`lines 4 — 7 of Patent Owner’s
`specification. The subway car further includes a Video signal source unit operatively connected to
`the monitors disclosed at; inter alia, Col. 5, lines 4 — 7 of Patent Owner’s specification. The
`monitors are spaced along the length of the car on opposed sides thereof disclosed at, inter alia,
`Col. 1, lines 45 — 50 as well as at Col. 4, lines 57 w 59 of Patent Owner’s specification. Each of
`the monitors are mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling disclosed at, inter alia, Col.
`3, line 57 — Col. 4, line 6 and Col. 4, lines 64 — 67 of Patent Owner’s specification. The screen of
`the monitor is substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface structure of the car disclosed
`at; inter alia, Col. 5, lines 40 — 42 of Patent Owner’s specification. The screen of the monitor is
`further directed obliquely downwardly toward the car seats, so that each video screen is readily
`visible to passengers in the subway car disclosed at, inter alia, Col. 4, line 67 ~ Col. 5, line 4 of
`Patent Owner’s specification.
`
`Grounds ofRejection to be Reviewed
`
`1. Whether Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(h) as being anticipated by
`Minesaki (Japanese Publication No. JP 63—125984 of Japanese Application No. JP
`61-272668, hereinafter “‘Minesaki”).
`
`is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by
`2. Whether Claim 1
`Amano et a1. (Japanese Publication No. JP 02~23985A, hereinafter “Aniano”).
`
`3. Whether Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over
`Maekawa et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP 04-160991A, hereinafter “Maekawa”) in
`View of Amano.
`
`4. Whether Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Minesaki in View of Moore et al. (U.S- Patent No. 3,480,727, hereinafter “‘Moore”).
`
`5. Whether Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Amano in View of Moore.
`
`6. Whether Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Maekawa and/or Shinagawa et al.
`(Japanese Publication No. JP 04-160991A,
`hereinafter “‘Shinagawa”), either in View of Amano and Moore.
`
`Arguments
`
`I.
`
`Refraction of Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as Being Anticipated by Minesaki
`
`Claim 1 m Patent Owner respectfully submits that it is well established that “[a] claim is
`anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`-2-
`
`ll)
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/01 1,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`in a single prior art reference. " Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of
`inherently described,
`California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1653 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also MPEP §2131.
`
`With regards to the Office’s rejection of Claim 1 as being anticipated by Minesaki, Patent
`Owner respectfully traverses. Specifically, Minesaki fails to expressly or inherently describe: (1)
`“each of said monitor being mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling”; (2) “with the
`screen ofthe monitor substantiallyflushed with the adjacent wall surface structure ofthe car ”; and
`(3) “directed obliquely downwardly toward the car seats
`
`With regards to the claimed feature “each ofsaid monitor being mounted at the junction of
`the sidewall and ceiling”, Minesaki appears to only contemplate two configurations for mounting
`the information transmission display (part 3). Specifically, one such configuration contemplated by
`Mincsaki is an “information display part J
`which is suspended and hangs down from the
`ceiling". {emphasis added} Such a configuration as described does not expressly or inherently
`describe mounting the monitor at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling.
`
`Minesaki’s second configuration contemplates that the “information transmission display
`part J may also be formed on the sidewall 9 of the train car. ” {emphasis added} Accordingly,
`Minesaki only appears to contemplate suspending the information transmission display part from
`the ceiling, or alternatively, forming the information transmission display part on the sidewall of the
`train car, and respectfully does not expressly contemplate mounting the monitor at the junction of
`the sidewall and ceiling. Furthermore, The Office alleges at page 100 of the Final Ex Parte Office
`Action that Fig. 2 of Minesaki illustrates the information transmission display part J at the junction
`of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner respectfiilly submits that it is clear that the drawing of Fig. 2 is
`not intended to be to scale, and that the drafting quality of Fig. 2 is poor. Patent Owner notes that
`
`per MPEP §21252
`
`"When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent
`as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement ofthe drawingfeatures are of
`little value. See Hockerson—Halherstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Jnt’l, 222 F.3d 951,
`
`956, 55 USPQ2d1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000)”
`
`For example, and as illustrated in Fig. 2, the information transmission display parts I are shown as
`being curved along the top portion of the display. However, Minesaki provides no mention or
`explanation for this curvature in its specification, and it would appear that such a curved feature is
`quite unusual in that it seemingly affects only the very top portion of the display shown in FIG. 2,
`which optically would seem to distort the light rays emanating from the display in an inconsistent
`manner (and hence distort at least a portion of any image displayed thereon, akin to a prism).
`Accordingly, it is believed that this drawing (Fig. 2) is at best unreliable (and at worst, inconsistent)
`in its teachings when considered without the context of the two configurations discussed supra
`provided by the written detaiied description, and would not expressly or inherently describe a
`monitor being "mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling " to one of ordinary skill in the
`art.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90l011,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`Furthermore, with regards to the claimed feature “with the screen of the monitor
`substantiallyflushed with the adjacent wall surface structure ofthe car ”, the Office alleges that the
`term “substantially" is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular
`characteristic of the claimed invention, and is further construed to be a broad term (citing MPEP
`§2173.05). While Patent Owner agrees that the term “substantially " is construed broadly, the use
`of the term “substantially" cannot be construed so broadly as to read the term ”flushed”
`completely out of the claim. See e.g., Exxon Chem. Patents 1:. Lubrtzol Corp, 64 F.3d 1553, 1555
`(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 518 US. 1020 (1996), as it believes the Office’s interpretation has
`done.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner notes that terms in its claims must be interpreted in light of
`Patent Owner’s specification as tiled; see MPEP § 2311; “During patent examination,
`the
`pending claims must be ”given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`Specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQch 132] (Fed. Cir. 2005)”
`{emphasis added}). Fig. 2 of Minesaki is reproduced below for the convenience of the Office.
`
`Fig. 2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 ofMinesa/ci
`
`As can be seen, there is not a single part of the information transmission display (part I) illustrated
`in Fig. 2 which can reasonably be considered to be flush with the adjacent wall surface (as Patent
`Owner has used that term in its specification and Claim 1);
`in fact,
`the entire information
`transmission display part J of Minesaki clearly protrudes away from the adjacent wall surface.
`Patent Owner refers the Office to FIG. 4a of its specification (reproduced below for convenience),
`which clearly shows an embodiment of Patent Owner’s invention that has a screen that
`is
`substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface (as explicitly recited in Claim 1), and with no
`protrusion of the display (as occurs in Minesaki). As indicated in Patent Owner’s specification
`regarding FIG. 4a, (See, eg. Col 5, lines 42 — 45 of Patent Owner’s specification) this configuratiOn
`gives a better aesthetic appearance to the inside of the subway car as a whole, as well as
`improving the display performance by minimizing the interference effects.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/011,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`~— ------- u
`
`34
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`‘
`
`FIG. 4a
`
`
`
`28
`14
`
`Plane of screen of
`
`5 monitor
`.
`....
`
`
`.
`
`:1
`

`
`E
`
`.3;
`_g
`9.3N
`
`53':
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Office’s interpretation of the term
`“substantialbzflushed " is improper, as the Office’s interpretation completely reads out the claimed
`‘flushed” feature, and obscures what is meant by "'substantial@ flushed" as clearly described
`throughout Patent Owner’s specification and figures. Patent Owner’s specification clearly describes
`a subway car with Video monitors that appear integral with the design of the subway car (see, e.g.,
`Col. 4, lines 8 — l3 of Patent Owner’s specification). Furthermore, the Patent Owner’s specification
`and figures are indicative of monitors that are built within the inner spaces and below the surface
`structure of the interior of the subway car so as to achieve the stated goal of making the video
`display monitors appear integral with the inside structure of the subway car (see e. g, Col. 3, line 55
`to Col. 4, line 9). No attempt has been made by Minesaki to expressly place the information
`transmission display parts within the inner spaces of the adjacent interior surface structure of the
`car, nor is Minesaki concerned about having the information transmission display parts screen
`“substantially flush ” with the adjacent surface structure.
`In response to Patent Owner’s previous
`assertions, the Office states that the term flush is “examined as forming a continuous plane or
`unbroken surface. ”’ Furthermore,
`the Office alleges that
`the screen of the display monitor
`illustrated in FIG. 43 above can never form a continuous plane or unbroken surface with the
`adjacent wall surface structure. However, the Office alleges that this is the case because the screen
`
`is further behind the transport screen of the enclosure (see page 103 of the Ex Parts Office Action).
`Patent Owner submits that although the screen of the monitor is behind the transport screen in the
`illustrated embodiment,
`the use of the transport screen would give the appearance of a flush
`mounted monitor (cg, “substantiallyflush ”), even though the screen of the monitor would actually
`be slightly offset from the adjacent wall surface structure of the car. Again, contrast with Minesaki,
`which illustrates information transmission display parts which would clearly not give the
`appearance of a flush mounted monitor, instead showing its information transmission display parts
`sitting on top of the wall surface. In fact, if the drawings of Minesaki were taken literally, the
`information transmission display parts would protrude out from the wall approximately four (4)
`times the thickness of the wall, or alternatively, would protrude away from the wall at a distance
`approximately equal to the back portion of the seats illustrated in Minesaki. Clearly, such a
`configuration cannot be considered to be “substantiallyflush ".
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`,5-
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/01 1,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise
`“it
`Furthermore,
`proportions ofthe elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is
`completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Aria Group Int ’1', 222 F.3d 95],
`95 6, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir, 2000) Per page 7 of the Ex Parte Advisory Action, the
`Office alleges that Minesaki discloses a "liquid crystal panel ” that would have a low profile and
`hence would be “substantially flush" as claimed. However, Patent Owner notes that .Minesaki
`never states that the liquid crystal panels are low profile and even assuming, arguendo, that they
`are low profile, a low profile monitor would not by itself be “substantiallyflush as claimed.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`Finally, Patent Owner respectfully submits that Minesaki does not expressly or inherently
`describe that “the screen of the monitor
`[is] directed obliquely downwardly toward the car
`seats”. While Patent Owner admits that the information transmission display parts I of Minesaki
`appear curved with the top portion seemingly directed obliquely downwardly, the majority portion
`of the information transmission display part J is directed perpendicular to the sidewall of the
`Minesaki train (see Fig. 2 reproduced above). Furthennore, Patent Owner has set forth and claimed
`in Claim 1 that “the screen of the monitor
`[is] directed obliquely downwardly toward the car
`seats ” as opposed to setting forth and claiming that only portions of the screen of the monitor are
`directed obliquely downwardly. In response, the Office states that since portions of the monitor
`screen of Minesalci are directed obliquely downward toward the car seats, Minesaki fully meets
`Patent Owner’s claimed language. However, Patent Owner has actually claimed “the screen of the
`monitor
`directed obliquely downwardly toward the car seats. so that each video screen is
`readily visible to passengers in the subway car.
`Furthermore, the stated reasoning in Patent
`Owner’s specification states that the screen is: “suitably angled downwardly, for best viewing by
`passengers seated opposite the screen” (Col. 4,
`lines 6 — 7 of the ‘602 Patent); “angled
`downwardly for ease ofviewing ofpassengers 24 seated in such inwardfacing seats 16 " (Col. 5,
`lines 1 — 2 of the ‘602 Patent); and "angled downwardly for best viewing by a passenger 24
`seated apposite ” (Col. 5, lines 30 ~ 32 of the ‘602 Patent). Patent Owner respectfully submits
`that the arrangement illustrated in Minesaki would frustrate the ability for each video screen to be
`readily visible to passengers if only a portion of the screen were directed obliquely downwardly
`(due to inter alia, optical distortion associated with only the very top portion of light emanating
`from the screen), and that the Office’s interpretation of Patent Owner’s language is inconsistent
`with Patent Owner’s specification.
`
`Accordingly, Patent OWner submits that Claim 1 distinguishes on this independent and
`distinct basis as well.
`
`35
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Re'ection of Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`102 as Bein Antici ated b Amano
`
`40
`
`45
`
`Claim 1 .. With regards to the Office’s rejection of Claim 1 as being anticipated by Amano,
`Patent Owner respectfully traverses. Specifically, Patent Owner respectfully submits that Amano
`fails to expressly or inherently describe “the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the
`acfiacent wall surface structure ofthe car ”.
`
`Again, the Office alleges that the term “substantialhr” is often used in conjunction with
`another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention and is further construed
`to be a broad term (citing MPEP §2173.05). Again, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the use
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`90/011,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`- u
`
`-
`
`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`of the term “substantially” cannot be construed so broadly as to read the term ‘flushed ”
`completely out of the claim. Figures 4 — 6 of Amano are reproduced below for the convenience of
`the Office.
`
`Figure 4
`
`
`
`Figure 4 ofAmano
`Figure 5
`
` a-'
`
`I
`
`l.—MHWW.
`
`5
`
`Figure 5 ofAmano
`Figure 6
`
`
`
`Figure 6 ofAmano
`
`10
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/01 1,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`As can be seen, there is not a single part of the information display device 8 illustrated in Figures 4
`— 6 that can reasonably be considered to be ‘flush with the aajiacenr wall surface " as recited in
`Claim 1. In fact, the entire information display device 8 of Amano (including the screen, which is
`the component Patent Owner’s Claim 1 recites as being substantially flushed with the wall surface)
`ciearly protrudes away from the adjacent wall surface. Patent Owner respectfijlly submits that the
`Office’s interpretation of the term “substantiallyflashed " is improper, as the Office’s interpretation
`completely reads out the "flushed” feature and obscures what is meant by "substantiallyflushed”
`as clearly described throughout Patent Owner’s specification and figures. Patent Owner’s
`specification clearly describes a subway car with video monitors that appear integral with the design
`of the subway car (see, e.g., Col. 4, lines 8 —— 13 of Patent Owner’s specification). Furthermore, the
`Patent Owner’s specification and figures are indicative of monitors that are built within the inner
`spaces and below the surface structure of the interior of the subway car so as to achieve the stated
`goal of making the video display monitors appear integral with the inside structure of the subway
`car (see e.g., Col. 3, line 55 to Col. 4, line 9). No attempt has been made by Amano to expressly
`place the information transmission dispiay parts within the inner spaces of the adjacent interior
`surface structure of the car, nor is Amano concerned about having the information transmission
`display parts screen “substantiallyflash ” with the adjacent surface structure. See again FIG. 4a of
`the ‘602 Patent discussed supra.
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s previous assertions, the Office states that the term flush is
`“examined as forming a continuous plane or unbroken surface. "" Furthermore, the Office alleges
`that the screen of the display monitor iilustrated in FIG. 43 above can never form a continuous
`plane or unbroken surface with the adjacent wall surface structure. However, the Office alleges that
`
`this is the case because the screen is further behind the transport screen of the enclosure (see page
`108 of the Ex Part6 Office Action). Patent Owner submits that although the screen of the monitor is
`behind the transport screen in the illustrated embodiment, the use of the transport screen would give
`the appearance of a flush mounted monitor (cg, “substantiallyflush”), even though the screen of
`the monitor would actually be slightly offset item the adjacent wall surface structure of the car.
`Again, contrast with Amano which illustrates information display devices which would clearly not
`give the appearance of a flush mounted monitor.
`
`Accordingiy, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Office’s rejection of Claim 1 as
`being anticipated by Amano is improper, and should be withdrawn.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`III.
`
`Rejection of Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as Being Obvious over Maekawa in
`View of Amano
`
`Claim 1 — With regards to Claim 1, the Office admits that Maekawa does not specifically
`disclose monitors that are mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling and directed obliquely
`downwardly toward the car seats (see pages 8 - 9 of the Final Ex Parte Office Action). However,
`the Office alleges that such a feature is taught by Amano. Patent Owner respectfully directs the
`Office’s attention towards the discussion of Amano supra. Furthermore, the Office alleges that
`Maekawa expressly discloses that the screen of the monitor is substantially flushed with the
`adjacent wall surface structure of the car, citing features 101 —— 124, page 738, column 2, and
`Figures l and 2 of Maekawa. Patent Owner respectfully traverses.
`
`40
`
`45
`
`-g-
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/011,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`that “the screen of the monitor [is]
`Specifically, Maekawa fails to teach or suggest
`substantially flushed with the aojiacerzt wall surface structure of the car". Page 738, column 2 of
`Maekawa states in relevant part: "...each ofa‘he television receivers (10]), (102), (103)
`(124) is
`made low profile using liquid crystal panels or the like." Accordingly, while Maekawa clearly
`contemplates low profile displays, Maekawa is completely silent as to these liquid crystal panels
`being “substantialljzflush " with the adjacent wall surface structure of the car.
`
`Again, the Office alleges that the term “substantially" is often used in conjunction with
`another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention and is further construed
`to be a broad term (citing MPEP §2173.0S). However, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the
`use of the term “substantially” cannot be construed so broadly as to read the term ‘flushed"
`completely out of the claim; see discussion provided supra. Figure 2 of Maekawa illustrates that no
`part of these low profile displays are “flush” with the adjacent wall surface structure of the car as
`Patent Owner has used that term in its specification and Claim 1. Figure 2 of Maekawa is
`reproduced below for the convenience of the Office.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`
`
` Television Receivers not
`
`“substantiallyflush”
`118 - 120 television receiver
`
`1 car cod};
`2 rooftop
`3 — 5 ventilator
`30a — 30d antenna
`40 raider—floor unit
`
`Figure 2 ofMaekawa
`
`20
`
`25
`
`As can be seen, there is not a single part of the television receiver illustrated in Figure 2 (including
`especially its screen) that is flush with the adjacent wall surface structure of the car; in fact, the
`entire television receiver of Maekawa clearly protrudes from the adjacent car wall surface, or sits on
`top of the adjacent wall surface, by an amount roughly equal to the thickness of the wall itself.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully submits that
`the Office’s interpretation of the term
`“substantially flushed” is improper, as the Office’s interpretation completely reads out
`the
`‘flushed ” feature.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/011,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`Patent Owner further submits that Amano does not cure the deficiencies present
`Maekawa (see discussion of Amano with regards to the Office’s 35 U.S.C. § lGZ rejection above).
`
`in
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s previous assertions, the Office states that the term flush is
`”examined as forming a continuous plane or unbroken surface. ”" Furthermore, the Office alleges
`that the screen of the display monitor illustrated in FIG. 4a above can never form a continuous
`plane or unbroken surface with the adjacent wall surface structure. However, the Office alleges that
`this is the case because the screen is further behind the transport screen of the enclosure (see page
`112 of the Ex Perle Office Action). Patent Owner submits that although the screen of the monitor.
`is behind the transport screen in the illustrated embodiment, the use of the transport screen would
`give the appearance of a flush mounted monitor (“substantlalbrflusli ”), even though the screen of
`the monitor would actually be slightly offset from the adjacent wall surface structure of the car.
`Again, contrast with Maekawa which illustrates information display devices which would clearly
`not give the appearance of a flush mounted monitor, instead showing its monitors sitting on top of
`the wall surface.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`Accordingly, the Offices rejection of Claim 1 as being obvious over Maekawa in view of
`Amano is respectfully improper and should be withdrawn.
`
`20
`
`IV.
`
`
`Re'ection of Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Bein Obvious over Minesaki in View
`of Moore
`
`is
`Claim 1 - Patent Owner respectfully traverses the Office’s contention that Claim 1
`obvious over Minesaki in view of Monro. Specifically, and as discussed previously herein with
`regards to Patth Owner’s discussion of Mincsaki supra, Minesaki fails to teach or suggest: (1)
`“each ofsaid monitor being mounted at the junction ofthe sidewall and ceiling "; and (2) “directed
`obliquely downwardly toward the car seats See, e.g., the discussion with regards to the 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 rejection of Minesaki discussed supra.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner submits that Moore does not cure the deficiencies found in
`
`Minesaki, as Moore is only being utilized for its teaching of a monitor adapted to be mounted flush
`with a surrounding wall, and teaches nothing of the placement of the monitor within the wall (e.g.,
`at a junction or otherwise).
`
`Patent Owner also submits that the Office’s combination of Minesaki and Moore constitutes
`
`impermissible hindsight reasoning. Specifically, Patent Owner notes that:
`
`sense necessarily a
`a
`in
`is
`“[ajny judgement on Obviousness
`reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account
`only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only
`‘fi’om applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin,
`443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
`
`Per page 11 of the Final Ex Parre Office Action, the Office alleges that:
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`-10..
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/01 1,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the invention as made to modifi/ the monitor being projecting slightly beyond
`the aah'acent wall surface structure of the car ofMinesaki with the screen of the
`monitor being substantialb) flushed with the adiacent wall surface structure of
`Moore et al. in order to provide a means to compensate for wall thickness or, the
`availability of sauce beyond the surface of the wall. ” {emphasis added}
`
`10
`
`15
`
`") is alleged
`The requisite motivation (i.e., “to provide a means to compensate fior iuall thickness
`to be disclosed at Col. 7, lines 44 — 47. However, Col. 7, lines 44 — 47 of Moore actually states:
`“[t]he type of installation depends on the available wall thickness. or the availability of space
`beyond the wall into which the rear end of the monitor may protect. " However, nothing within the
`teachings of Minesaki teaches or suggests the availability of space beyond the wall into which the
`rear end of the monitor may project. Accordingly, Patent Owner submits that the only such
`reasoning for making such a combination is gleaned entirely from Patent Owner’s disclosure, as
`nothing within the teachings of Minesaki suggests the availability of space or the desirability of the
`proposed combination. Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Office’s reasoning
`constitutes impermissible hindsight reasoning.
`
`20
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Office’s rejection of Claim 1 as
`being unpatentable over Minesaki in view of Moore is improper and should be withdrawn.
`
`V.
`
`103 as Bein Obvious ever Amano in View
`Re'ection of Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`of Moore
`
`
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`Claim 1 —— Patent Owner respectfully traverses the Office’s rejection of Claim I as being
`unpatentable over Amano in View of Moore. Specifically, and as discussed previously herein with
`regards to Patent Owner’s discussion of Amano supra, Amano fails to teach or suggest “each of
`said monitor being mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling". See, e.g., the discussion
`with regards to the 35 U.S.C. § l02 rejection ofArnano discussed supra.
`
`in part, that it would have been obvious for one of
`Furthermore, the Office alleges,
`ordinary skill in the art to arrive at “the screen of the manitor [being] substantially flushed with
`the aajacent wall surface structure of the car" by combining the monitors mounted near the
`junction of the sidewall and ceiling of Amano (see Figures 4 — 6 of Amano) with the teaching of
`a monitor adapted to be mounted flush with a surrounding wall as taught by Moore. Patent Owner
`respectfully disagrees and traverses.
`
`MPEP §2143.03(Vl) states that: "[a] prior art reference must be considered in its
`entirety,
`i. e., as a whole. including portions that would lead away fiom the claimed invention. ”
`Accordingly, where cited art teaches away from it claimed feature, the cited art is not available
`for the purposes of an obviousness rejection.
`
`Furthermore, if the ‘proposed modification would render the prior art invention being
`modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,
`then there is no suggestion or motivation to
`
`make the proposed modificationfn re Gordon 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ [125 (Fed. Cir.
`1984) ”. See also MPBP §2143.01.
`
`,1}-
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Filed
`
`:
`
`:
`
`90/011,861
`
`August 16, 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 2003
`GZJKDKV!3114
`
`In the instant case, Amano fails to teach or suggest “the screen of the monitor [being]
`substantialbx flushed with the adjment wall surface structure of the car”. However, the Office
`states that the monitor of Amano can readily and predictably be substituted with the flush
`monitor of Moore. To the contrary, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the wall structure of
`Amano (in particular, the area near the junction of the sidewall and ceiling) would need to be
`appreciably modified in order to accommodate a flush monitor. See also, for example, FIG. 4a of
`the “602 Patent. However, Amano also illustrates storage areas on the upper areas of the train.
`See for example, Figure 4 of Amano reproduced below.
`figure 4
`
`
`
`Figure 4 ofAmano
`
`Accordingly, modifications to the area near the junction of the sidewall and ceiling of the Amano
`train would render the Amano train unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. For example, if the
`wall surface structure near the information display device 8 were to be extended so that the screen
`of the information display device 8 were "substantz‘allyflushed” with its adjacent walls, the storage
`areas would need to be substantially reduced in size or eliminated entirely. It is not clear to Patent
`Owner why one would be motivated to make such a modification, where the modification would
`remove desirable storage area on the train of Amano, thereby leading to a situation where no
`overhead storage is available for passengers’ luggage or other items. By analogy, one would not
`design a commercial airliner such that no overhead storage was available (thereby requiring
`passengers to check all baggage).
`
`Note also that the cross-sectional View in FIG. 4 of Amano reproduced above shows a
`thin outer shell or body for the train car with seemingly little or no interior volume of space,
`thereby frustrating mounting of the monitor screen flush therewith (otherwise, the back of the
`monitor, wiring, etc., would protrude through the car body and be exposed on the outside), which
`is clearly undesirable.
`
`Furthermore, it is a stated purpose of Amano to take the opportunity to effectively use the
`time on a transportation vehicle to provide various information to people who are using various
`cited transportation vehicles (i.e., airplane, train and bus). Accordingly, if Amano were modified
`so that the displ

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket