EXHIBIT 2001
`
`EXHIBIT 2001
`
`
`
`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
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`F ING DATE
`
`APPLICATION 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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
