`EXHIBIT 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`313-1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22.
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`90/011,861
`
`08/16/2011
`
`6700602
`
`BLAIR.OO1A
`
`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 TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte SCOTT BLAIR
`Patent Owner, Appellant
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/011,861
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1’
`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
`
`' Issued Mar. 2, 2004 to Blair (hereinafter the “’602 Patent’).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/011,861
`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.” Br. 1.
`
`Wereverse.
`
`Wehaveconsidered 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 CER. § 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 reproducedas follows:
`
`A subwaycar for masstransportation 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
`opposedsides thereof, each of said monitor being mounted at
`
`* In response to Patent Owner’s Request for Ex Parte Reexaminationfiled
`August 16, 2011, seeking reexamination of independent claim 1, an Order
`Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination was issued on September29,
`2011, ordering reexamination of claim 1. During reexamination, Patent
`Ownerpresented 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 90/011,861
`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 screenis readily visible to
`passengers in the subwaycar.
`
`The Examiner’s Rejections
`
`1. Claim | stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Minesaki (JP 63-125984, pub. May 30, 1988).
`
`2. Claim | stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Amano (JP H2-223985, pub. Sept. 6, 1990).
`
`3. Claim | 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 | stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Maekawa, Amano, and Moore.
`
`7. Claim | 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 90/011,861
`Patent US 6,700,602 Bl
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Claim I rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Minesaki
`
`Appellant argues, inter alia, that Minesaki fails to teach the limitation
`
`of “each of said monitor being mountedat the junction of a sidewall and
`
`ceiling” as recited in claim | (Br. 3). In particular, Appellant argues that
`
`“Tw|hen the reference does not disclose that the drawingsare to scale andis
`
`silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing
`
`features are oflittle 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 Minesakiprovides no
`
`mention or explanation for this curvature in its specification, which would
`
`be unusualin 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 showsthe
`
`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
`
`circumstancesis not sufficient” under anticipation principles. Jn re
`
`Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citations
`
`and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/011,861
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
`
`anticipated by Minesaki.
`
`Claim I rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Amano
`
`Appellant argues that Amanofails 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 | (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
`
`flushed against the surface (see for example, Amano’s Figure 4 reproduced
`
`below).
`
`
`
`Figure 4 showsthe side view of the screen extending some distance
`awayfrom the surface ofthe car.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/011,861
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
`
`anticipated by Amano.
`
`Claim I rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
`Maekawain view ofAmano
`
`Appellant argues, inter alia, that Maekawa’s Figure 2 showsthe
`
`monitors on top of the surface structure of the car, and thus, Maekawa does
`
`not show the screens being substantially flushed against the car surface (Br.
`
`9-10).
`
`Weagree 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 whichis 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 Maekawain view of Amano.
`
`Claim I rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
`Minesaki in view ofMoore
`
`Appellant repeats the same argumentas that presented for claim | as
`
`anticipated by Minesaki as addressed supra (Br. 10-11).
`
`Accordingly, we reverse claim | for the same reasonsas stated above.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/011,861
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`Claim I rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
`Amano in view ofMoore
`
`Appellant repeats the same argumentas that presented for claim | as
`
`anticipated by Amano as addressed supra (Br. 11-12).
`
`Thus, we reverse claim | for the same reasonsas stated above.
`
`Claim I rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
`Maekawa and/or Shinagawain view ofAmano and Moore
`
`Appellant repeats the same argumentas that presented for claim | as
`
`anticipated by Amano as addressed supra (Br. 14).
`
`Thus, we reverse claim | for the same reasonsas stated above.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the analysis above, we concludethat the Examinererred in
`
`rejecting claim 1.
`
`DECISION
`
`Wereverse 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 C.F.R. § 41.50(f.
`
`REVERSED
`
`
`
`Appeal 2014-000060
`Reexamination Control 90/011,861
`Patent US 6,700,602 B1
`
`msc
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
`16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
`SUITE 201
`SAN DIEGO CA 92127
`
`