Ex Parte Michaelis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

13871472 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

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.
13/871,472 04/26/2013 Jan MICH AFT,IS 1000/0142PUS1 7663
60601 7590 09/25/2017
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
ZIAEIANMEHDIZADEH, NAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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 JAN MICHAELIS
Appeal 2015-007903
Application 13/871,472
Technology Center 3600
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jan Michaelis (“Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16,
which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 8—13; Reply Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007903
Application 13/871,472
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention “relates to a display device for a
vehicle, particularly a motor vehicle, equipped with a plurality of comfort
systems that can be turned on or off.” Spec. 1 3. Claims 1, 6, 12, 15, and 16
are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A display device for a vehicle having a plurality of
comfort systems that are configured to be turned on or off, the
display device comprising:
a display area configured to display a plurality of
graphical objects; and
a control unit configured to control the display area, the
control unit being configured to receive data based on a
consumption of a plurality of comfort systems and to produce
graphical data for the graphical objects representing the
consumption for the display area from the data,
wherein the graphical objects are each configured as a
segment of a circular figure, and
wherein the graphical objects represent tumed-on
comfort systems currently having a highest energy
consumption.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
appeal:
Bean US 2003/0222867 A1 Dec. 4, 2003
Riegelman US 2011/0109449 A1 May 12,2011
Perkins US 2011/0178670 A1 July 21, 2011
2
Appeal 2015-007903
Application 13/871,472
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Perkins and Riegelman. Final Act. 2—3.
II. Claims 1—3, 5—8, 10, 12, 13, and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perkins,
Riegelman, and Bean. Id. at 3—8.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I— Claim 15 as unpatentable over Perkins and Riegelman
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from
Perkins and Riegelman renders obvious the subject matter of claim 15. Final
Act. 2—3. Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because the cited
references do not expressly teach that “the display area is configured to
switch from displaying the graphical object of just one of the tumed-on
comfort systems and displaying the graphical objects of all tumed-on
comfort systems,” as recited in the claim. See Appeal Br. 8—9. In particular,
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s reasoning in the rejection is
problematic because it does not rely on an express disclosure within the
cited art for identifying a specific problem, and a potential solution thereto,
as it relates to such a configuration of the display area, such that “the applied
references fail to teach or suggest each and every feature of the claimed
invention.” Id. at 9; see id. at 8—9; Reply Br. 4—5.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner accounts
for this acknowledged lack of an express teaching—logically explaining that
one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that “versatility in a
3
Appeal 2015-007903
Application 13/871,472
vehicle GUI [(graphical user interface)] would enable the user to make [an]
intuitive and quick decision as to what accessory unit usage should be
adjusted to mitigate the overall system consumption.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner notes that the prior art recognized a benefit in “displaying ‘at
least’ one energy consumption amount.” Id. (citing Perkins ^fl[ 12, 15).
Although claim 15 includes a configuration of the display area to
switch from displaying a graphical representation of consumption data for
one system to a representation for all systems, we agree with the Examiner’s
reasoned conclusion that selecting such a configuration from a small set of
known possibilities is insufficient for patentability when the selection yields
a predictable result. Where there are “a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to . . .
anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary
skill.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Moreover,
“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellant does not provide any factual evidence
or persuasive technical reasoning to explain why selecting a particular
configuration of known display options would be unpredictable or somehow
beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See id. at 417.
After careful consideration of all the evidence, Appellant’s argument
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning for the
conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 15. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Perkins and Riegelman.
4
Appeal 2015-007903
Application 13/871,472
Rejection II— Claims 1—3, 5—8, 10, 12, 13, and 16 as unpatentable over
Perkins, Riegelman, and Bean
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from
Perkins, Riegelman, and Bean renders obvious the subject matter of
claims 1—3, 5—8, 10, 12, 13, and 16. Final Act. 3—8. Appellant argues that
the rejection is improper because the cited references do not expressly teach
that “the graphical objects are each configured as a segment of a circular
figure,” that “the graphical objects represent tumed-on comfort systems
currently having a highest energy consumption,” and/or that “an area of each
of the plurality of segments is proportional to a corresponding consumption
amount,” as recited in the independent claims. See Appeal Br. 10-13.
These arguments essentially assert that the graphical display of each of the
cited references individually is not configured in exactly the same way as the
claimed display device. See id.', Reply Br. 6—7.
Appellant’s assertions are unpersuasive because the rejection is based
on obviousness and, thus, already presumes the presence of some
distinctions. The relevant inquiry is not whether distinctions exist between
the claimed subject matter and the disclosures of Perkins, Riegelman, and/or
Bean individually; rather, it is whether those distinctions are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Although we appreciate
Appellant’s observation that distinctions may exist between the claimed
subject matter and the disclosures of Perkins, Riegelman, and/or Bean
individually, merely asserting a difference in a single reference is
insufficient to identify error in the conclusion of an obviousness rejection.
5
Appeal 2015-007903
Application 13/871,472
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art teachings.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, “in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
[references] together like pieces of a puzzle” because “[a] person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int 7
Co., 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Here, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoned conclusion that one of
ordinary skill in the art could have combined the teachings of Perkins,
Riegelman, and Bean to arrive at an intuitive graphical representation of
energy consumption data, as recited in the claims, for the reasons explained
in the rejection (see Final Act. 3—8) and further clarified in the Answer (see
Ans. 5—7). Appellant does not provide any factual evidence or persuasive
technical reasoning to explain why selecting known graphical representation
elements from Perkins, Riegelman, and Bean to display energy consumption
data in the configurations claimed would be unpredictable or somehow
beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int 7 Co., 550 U.S.
at 417.
After careful consideration of ah the evidence, Appellant’s argument
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning for the
conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 1—3, 5—8, 10, 12, 13, and
16. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perkins, Riegelman, and Bean.
6
Appeal 2015-007903
Application 13/871,472
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perkins and Riegelman.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—8, 10,
12, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perkins,
Riegelman, and Bean.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7