AUDI AGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 24, 20212020003148 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/756,421 02/28/2018 Ulrich MUELLER 2319.1259 2231 21171 7590 08/24/2021 STAAS & HALSEY LLP SUITE 700 1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER ALMEIDA, CORY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2021 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): ptomail@s-n-h.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ULRICH MUELLER, TOBIAS SPIELMANNLEITNER, and MANFRED MITTERMEIER ________________ Appeal 2020-003148 Application 15/756,421 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 13–32.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to a motor vehicle comprising an input device. Spec. 2:11–12. Claim 13 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Audi AG is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 According to the Appellant’s Amendment, After Non-Final Office Action (filed July 2, 2019), claims 1–12 are cancelled. Appeal 2020-003148 Application 15/756,421 2 13. A method for operating an input device, comprising: displaying a graphical user interface, including a sliding controller, in a region of a touch-sensitive display unit; and outputting a tactilely perceptible feedback on the touch- sensitive display unit by an actuator as long as a finger sweeping over the touch-sensitive display unit in the region of the graphical user interface is detected, an intensity of the tactilely perceptible feedback being predefined depending on a speed at which the finger sweeps over the touch-sensitive display unit in the region of the graphical user interface where the sliding controller is displayed, the intensity of the tactilely perceptible feedback being predefined to be smaller as the finger sweeps faster over the touch-sensitive display unit in the region of the graphical user interface. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added). REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 13–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Posamentier (US 2012/0194466 A1; published Aug. 2, 2012) and Rosenberg (US 2002/0109668 A1; published Aug. 15, 2002). Ans. 3–8; Final Act. 5–10. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Posamentier teaches a touch screen that determines an intensity of tactilely perceptible feedback based on a speed at which a finger sweeps over a touch sensitive display. Ans. 10 (citing Posamentier ¶¶ 19, 25, 31). The Examiner finds that Rosenberg teaches an intensity of feedback being predefined to be smaller as a cursor sweeps faster to have better selection of graphical objects. Ans. 4–5 (Rosenberg ¶¶ 7, 8, 40, 76–83); Final Act. 6–7 (citing Rosenberg ¶¶ 7, 8, 76–83). The Appeal 2020-003148 Application 15/756,421 3 Examiner concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (hereinafter “PHOSITA”) would have combined Posamentier’s touch sensitive display that includes haptic feedback and Rosenberg’s intensity of feedback being predefined to be smaller as a cursor sweeps faster to have better selection of graphical objects. Ans. 3–5, 8–12 (citing Posamentier ¶¶ 1, 10, 18, 19, 25, 31, 43, Fig. 1; Rosenberg ¶¶ 7, 8, 40, 76–83); Final Act. 5–7 (citing Posamentier ¶¶ 1, 10, 18, 43, Fig. 1; Rosenberg ¶¶ 7, 8, 76–83). Appellant argues the Examiner fails to provide a rationale to combine the references. Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 1–5. In particular, Appellant argues that a PHOSITA would recognize that Posamentier and Rosenberg are so different because Posamentier pertains to a touch screen with haptic feedback whereas Rosenberg pertains to haptic feedback of human-computer input devices. Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 1–5. In addition, Appellant argues Rosenberg’s teaching of increasing haptic feedback does not benefit a user using Posamentier’s touch screen because increasing haptic feedback does not help the user see more precisely where her or his finger is being detected because the finger obscures the characters. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 4–5. We disagree with Appellant. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they amount to bodily incorporation arguments. Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 1–5. We note the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not whether one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Posamentier teaches a touch screen that determines an Appeal 2020-003148 Application 15/756,421 4 intensity of tactilely perceptible feedback based on a speed at which a finger sweeps over a touch sensitive display. Ans. 10 (citing Posamentier ¶¶ 19, 25, 31). Also, Rosenberg teaches an intensity of feedback being predefined to be smaller as a cursor sweeps faster to have better selection of graphical objects. Ans. 4–5 (Rosenberg ¶¶ 7, 8, 40, 76–83); Final Act. 6–7 (citing Rosenberg ¶¶ 79, 83) (Rosenberg’s paragraph 79 discusses having a stronger haptic effect at lower velocities and a weaker haptic effect at faster velocities). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that a PHOSITA would have combined Posamentier’s touch sensitive display that includes haptic feedback and Rosenberg’s intensity of feedback being predefined to be smaller as a cursor sweeps faster to have better selection of graphical objects. Ans. 3–5, 8–12 (citing Posamentier ¶¶ 1, 10, 18, 19, 25, 31, 43, Fig. 1; Rosenberg ¶¶ 7, 8, 40, 76–83); Final Act. 5–7 (citing Posamentier ¶¶ 1, 10, 18, 43, Fig. 1; Rosenberg ¶¶ 7, 8, 76–83). We determine the Examiner has set forth sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appellant does not argue claims 14–32 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 4–7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 13, 19, and 25; and (2) dependent claims 14–18, 20– 24, and 26–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to Appeal 2020-003148 Application 15/756,421 5 make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13–32 103 Posamentier, Rosenberg 13–32 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation