AUDI AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 24, 2021

2020003148 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2021)

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