Ex Parte PryorDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201611852690 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111852,690 09/10/2007 69753 7590 01/29/2016 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Timothy Pryor 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 106842036721 1691 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01129/2016 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): EOfficeLA@mofo.com PatentDocket@mofo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY PRYOR Appeal2013-010699 Application 11/852,690 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN F. HORVATH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's rejection of claims 21---61. Claims 1-5, 11-20, 67-74, and 80 have been withdrawn, and claims 6-10, 62---66, and 7 5-79 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-010699 Application 11/852,690 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed to instrument panels for vehicles, and control and display devices. Spec. i-f 12. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21: A computer interface, comprising: a housing; a touch surface in said housing; an image display device for displaying video or graphical information on said touch surface; an optical sensor configured for detecting one or more objects on or proximate said touch surface; and a controller configured for selectively varying an allocation of light energy from the image display device over selected areas of the touch surface based on the detection of the one or more objects. DuFaux Inoue REFERENCES US 6,611,252 Bl US 2007/0159453 Al REJECTIONS Aug.26,2003 July 12, 2007 Claims 21---61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. Claims 21---61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue and DuFaux. Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal2013-010699 Application 11/852,690 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 21---61 as unpatentable over Inoue and DuFaux, but do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 21---61 as lacking written description. We highlight the following for emphasis. Rejection of Claims 21-61under35 U.S.C. § 112, f 1 Independent claims 21, 43, and 53 recite "a controller configured for selectively varying an allocation of light energy from the image display device over selected areas of the touch surface based on the detection of the one or more objects." App. Br. 11, 13-15 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds this subject matter "is not described in the specification as submitted originally."1 Final Act. 2. Appellant argues paragraphs 110-114 of the Specification, and Figure 8 of the Drawings, support the controller limitation. App. Br. 5. We are persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Specification filed on September 10, 2007 discloses "a control system used to preferentially illuminate or provide information in those 1 In referring to the specification as submitted originally, it is unclear whether the Examiner is referring to the specification to which the currently pending Application claims priority as a continuation-in-part (CIP), or to the Specification of the currently pending Application, which was filed on September 10, 2007. Regardless, we determine whether claims 21---61 are supported by the written description of the Specification filed on September 10, 2007. That is, we determine whether claims 21-61 are supported by the Specification of the currently pending Application; we do not determine whether they are entitled to claim priority to an earlier filed application. 3 Appeal2013-010699 Application 11/852,690 control regions being worked by the driver or passenger of [a] vehicle." Spec. ,-r 110. For example, when a driver touches a knob near a touch screen surface, a sensor detects the touch, and the controller "allocate[ s] more light energy into the control whose touch or turning has been sensed." Id. ,-r 111. The allocation of more light may "cause different or additional information to be displayed," such as an "increase [in] the size of lettering for the knob and its gradations," or may result in "send[ing] more light to the top of the display than the bottom." Id. i-fi-1112, 114. We find these disclosures adequately support Appellant's "controller" limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 21---61under35 U.S.C. § 112, ,-r 1 for lack of written description. Rejection of Claims 21-61under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Inoue teaches or suggests the "controller" limitation recited in independent claims 21, 43, and 53. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Inoue i-fi-1108, 144, and 209; Figs. 6A, 6B, 7, and 22-23). Appellant argues that Inoue teaches "that the overall brightness of the beam light source can be varied. However, there is no disclosure that the brightness can be varied based on the detection of an object on the touch surface, as required by the claims." App. Br. 6. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Inoue, at paragraph 108, teaches "[t]he strength of beam light output from the beam light source 131 is controlled by the drive control unit 133 based on control data sent from the main control unit 111." Inoue i-f 108 (emphasis added). As shown in Figures 22 and 23, when main control unit 111 detects the movement of a user's finger across a projected image, it 4 Appeal2013-010699 Application 11/852,690 sends control data to light source 131 in image projection unit 130 (see Fig. 2), which "changes the color parameter of the image portion of the operation-position" so that the user can "recognize the tracking of handwritten input corresponding to the change of operation-position." Id. i-fi-f 196-197 (describing Inoue Figures 22-23). Moreover, in addition to, or as an alternative to changing the color of the touched area of the image, Inoue teaches "the brightness of the image may be changed, or the image itself may be changed to another image." Id. i-f 198. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Inoue teaches or suggests the "controller" recited in independent claims 21, 43, and 53, and sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Final Act. 3--4. Appellant does not separately argue for the patentability of dependent claims 22--42, 44--52, and 54--61. App. Br. 7-8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons. DECISION The rejection of claims 21---61under35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f l, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is not sustained. The rejection of claims 21---61under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue and DuFaux is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED Jagr 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation