Ex Parte Powers et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2012

11411339 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT B. POWERS,
CHARLES A. MASSOLL,
MARK J. PERSON,
RODNEY A. GOODEN,
VIVIAN T. WILLIAMS,
JOEL D. LUTZ,
DAVID E. BOJANOWSKI, and
IRWIN J. KARWICK
____________

Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert B. Powers, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 17-23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.1

THE INVENTION
Claims 1 and 17, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An assisted learning (AL) system for a vehicle including
vehicle systems with input devices, comprising:
memory that stores usage instructions for said input devices;
an AL input device;
an audio output device; and
a control module that retrieves a respective one of said usage
instructions associated with a selected one of said input devices and
deactivates said selected one of said input devices when said selected
one of said input devices is actuated within a predetermined period
after said AL input device is actuated and that outputs said usage
instructions to said audio output device.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Mar. 23, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 18,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Apr. 15, 2010).
Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339

3
17. A method of operating an assisted learning (AL) system for a
vehicle including vehicle systems with input devices, comprising:
storing usage instructions for said input devices; and
when a selected one of said input devices is actuated within a
predetermined period after an AL input device is actuated;
retrieving a respective one of said usage instructions
associated with the selected one of said input devices;
deactivating said selected one of said input devices; and
outputting said usage instructions to an audio output
device.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hess
Oesterling
Gardner
Yaple

US 6,389,332 B1
US 6,542,818 B1
US 2004/0019591 A1
US 6,922,730 B1
May 14, 2002
Apr. 1, 2003
Jan. 29, 2004
Jul. 26, 2005
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gardner and Hess.
2. Claims 7, 9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gardner, Hess, and Oesterling.
3. Claims 4, 5, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gardner, Hess, and Yaple.

Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339

4
ISSUES
Whether the combination of Gardner and Hess would lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to the system claimed; that is, a system comprising
a control module that retrieves a respective one of said usage
instructions associated with a selected one of said input devices and
deactivates said selected one of said input devices when said selected
one of said input devices is actuated within a predetermined period
after said AL input device is actuated and that outputs said usage
instructions to said audio output device.
Claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt and rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the
Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 17, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gardner and Hess.
The Appellants argued claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 17, 20, and 23 as a group
(App. Br. 9-11). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this
group, and the remaining claims 2, 6, 8, 17, 20, and 23 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Gardner is cited as evidence that a system comprising a memory, an
assisted learning input device, an audio output device, and a control module
was disclosed in the prior art at the time of the invention. That Gardner does
not disclose its control module functioning as claimed is not in dispute.
Hess is cited for disclosing “that when information is being outputted,
Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339

5
other audio components are muted (col. 1, ll. 62-65; col. 3, ll. 43-48; col. 5,
ll. 1-5).” Answer 5.
The Examiner takes the position that the combination of Gardner and
Hess would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the system claimed; that
is, a system comprising
a control module that retrieves a respective one of said usage
instructions associated with a selected one of said input devices and
deactivates said selected one of said input devices when said selected
one of said input devices is actuated within a predetermined period
after said AL input device is actuated and that outputs said usage
instructions to said audio output device.
Claim 1.
The Appellants disagree, arguing that “Hess teaches selecting one of a
plurality of input devices, activating the selected input device, and
deactivating all other input devices.” App. Br. 9. This is argued to be in
contradistinction to the way the claimed control module operates, which is to
“deactivate[] said selected one of said input devices when said selected one
of said input devices is actuated within a predetermined period after said AL
input device is actuated” (claim 1).
The Appellants’ characterization of what Hess describes appears to be
accurate and the Examiner does not appear to dispute it. But the question
here is one of obviousness over the combination of Gardner and Hess, not
anticipation by Hess alone.
The Specification describes the claimed control module this way.
“Once the user actuates the AL input device 12, the control module 16,
through the audio port 28, outputs a voice prompt.” [0016]. “For example,
Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339

6
the user may depress a radio preset button. In response thereto, an exemplary
control 18 prompt may be, ‘This is a radio preset button. It provides a fast
easy method to tune to a favorite radio station. ... .’” [0017]. “If the input
device of the AL system is activated, control mutes all other radio output at
106.” [0020]. Accordingly, as we understand it, the claimed control module
operates so that when, for example, a radio is on and the AL input device is
actuated, the control module will mute the radio.
But neither the claim when reasonably broadly construed, nor the
Specification when reading the claim in light of it, precludes re-activating,
for example, the radio - after it has been muted “within a predetermined
period after said AL input device is actuated” – in order to output, for
example, a voice prompt from the AL input device.
Gardner discloses a control device that sends instructions from an AL
input device to an output device (see, e.g., [0024]: “For example, the audio
response may be ‘The spare tire is below the panel in the bottom of the
trunk.’ Upon hearing the response from the system 10, the user is now aware
of the location of the spare tire.”). However, Gardner’s control device does
not appear to mute any device – so that, when, for example, a radio is on and
the AL input device is actuated, Gardner’s control module would not mute
the radio.
Turning to Hess, it discloses a warning-type information system
which outputs information into three urgency levels of decreasing urgency.
Col. 4, ll. 59-61.
For this purpose a corresponding priority list is stored in the
information management means 15. The information management
means 15 implements an information output cycle, in which they first
Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339

7
select the first, primary urgency level 16 (with the highest information
outputting priority), and interrogate to determine whether information
of this urgency level is ready to be output. If so, an audible output
from electronic entertainment components which may be switched on,
and from a telephone microphone, is suppressed (specifically
switched to a mute setting-“sound mute”). In addition, the outputting
of information from the two lower urgency levels, represented by an
associated function block 17 in FIG. 2, is also suppressed.
The present information with the highest urgency level is then
output.
Col. 4, l. 62 – col. 5, l. 9.
While it would appear, as the Appellants argue (App. Br. 9 and Reply
Br. 6-7), that Hess activates an input device so as to output urgent
information, nevertheless Hess discloses muting any device communicating
less urgent information. It is quite clear from reading Hess that the system
Hess is describing builds on prior systems whereby any information
distracting the listener from hearing an urgent message is muted. “Thus, it is
known, for example, to switch the car radio to a mute setting when a
telephone call is received, or to reduce the loudspeaker volume of the radio
when the navigation system issues a voice instruction.” Col. 1, ll. 62-65.
Notwithstanding that Hess may activate an input device so as to
communicate an urgent message, one of ordinary skill in the art reading
Hess would understand that Hess’s system would first mute all input devices
whose output would distract the listener from hearing the urgent message. In
our view, given the combination of Gardner and Hess, it would have been
obvious to provide for a control module that operates so that when, for
example, a radio is on and the AL input device is actuated, the control
Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339

8
module will mute the radio. Hess does not teach, nor teach toward, a system
whereby, for example, when the AL input device is actuated, the radio is
turned on.
Given the broadest reasonable construction of the claim and the
totality of the evidence, we find that the preponderance of the evidence
weighs in favor of the prima facie case of obviousness. No persuasive
argument or objective secondary considerations having been offered for our
consideration, and the rejection is sustained for the foregoing reasons.

The rejection of claims 7, 9, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gardner, Hess, and Oesterling.
The Appellants argued against this rejection for the same reasons used
to argue against the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 17, 20, and 23. App. Br.
11. Accordingly, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection,
we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in this rejection.

The rejection of claims 4, 5, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gardner, Hess, and Yaple.
The Appellants argued against this rejection for the same reasons used
to argue against the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 17, 20, and 23. App. Br.
11. Accordingly, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection,
we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in this rejection.

Appeal 2010-010688
Application 11/411,339

9
CONCLUSIONS
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 17, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardner and Hess; claims 7, 9, 21, and
22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardner, Hess, and
Oesterling; and, claims 4, 5, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gardner, Hess, and Yaple are affirmed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 17-23 is
affirmed.

AFFIRMED

mls