Ex Parte Tomasson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201311620208 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013) 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. 11/620,208 01/05/2007 Kris Tomasson 81154551 8867 28395 7590 12/17/2013 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER TUN, NAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2687 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2013 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 KRIS TOMASSON and BRIAN WHITE ____________________ Appeal 2011-006229 Application 11/620,208 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006229 Application 11/620,208 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-15. Claim 7 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a display system for an automotive vehicle. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A display system for an automotive vehicle comprising: a sensor arrangement configured to determine a state of the vehicle; a display including indicia indicative of the state of the vehicle; an indicator element associated with the display and operatively connected with the sensor arrangement such that the indicator element indicates the state of the vehicle by its position relative to the indicia, the indicator element being configured to translate in a first direction as the state of the vehicle increases, if the state of the vehicle is less than a first predetermined threshold, to rotate as the state of the vehicle increases, if the state of the vehicle is greater than the first predetermined threshold and less than a second predetermined threshold, and to translate in a second direction as the state of the vehicle increases, if the state of the vehicle is greater than the second predetermined threshold; and a looped belt attached with the indicator element and configured to cause the indicator element to translate in the first and second directions. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Appeal 2011-006229 Application 11/620,208 3 Shotz Wada Honma US Des. 249,947 US 6,714,126 B2 US 7,347,160 B2 Sept. 5, 1978 Mar. 30, 2004 Mar. 25, 2008 REJECTIONS 1 The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honma, Shotz, and Wada. Ans. 4-8. Claims 8-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honma and Shotz. Ans. 8-10. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS 1. The Examiner erred by failing to provide evidence supporting a finding that a “‘larger area of central region to display other information’ does indeed ‘[enhance] the benefit of centerless needle pointer type meter.’” App. Br. 4. 2. “[B]ecause space is limited within vehicle instrument panels, modifying Honma with Shotz as suggested by the Examiner would render Honma unsatisfactory for its intended purposes.” Id. 1 Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 12 on the basis of claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2- 6, 9-11 and 13-15. Therefore, based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1-6 and 7-15 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-006229 Application 11/620,208 4 ISSUE ON APPEAL Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4-5) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2), the issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in combining Honma and Shotz. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-10) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 11-13) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. The Examiner finds that modifying the circular display of Honma to incorporate the oblong design of Shotz would maximize a usable center region for other displays having various shapes (e.g., Homna’s display device 7 depicted as rectangular in shape). Ans. 5, 11. We agree and find the Examiner’s rationale for combining Honma and Shotz reasonable and representative of an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In contrast, Appellants provide insufficient rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us that providing a central region shaped to accommodate and maximize the usable area of a central display region would not be an enhancement or would otherwise make the modification improper. Appeal 2011-006229 Application 11/620,208 5 Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a combination of known elements, the Court in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) explains: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock [, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Thus, we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because the Examiner has established a nexus for the combination of the cited references. “Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. We are further not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants’ contention that modifying Honma to incorporate the oblong design of Shotz would render Honma unsatisfactory for its intended purposes. Appellants argue that “making the meter of Honma larger in view of Shotz (such that it takes up more area and thus has a ‘larger area of central region to display other information’) would make it difficult (if not impossible) to package within the vehicle instrument panels contemplated by Honma.” App. Br. 4. Appeal 2011-006229 Application 11/620,208 6 We disagree. Other than attorney argument, Appellants provide no evidence that Honma’s instrument panel would be unable to readily accommodate the modified design. Furthermore, as explained by the Examiner, while employing the oblong shape of Shotz’s display reduces wasted area by conforming the central region to the shape of a sub-display, it does not necessarily result in making the meter of Honma larger. Ans. 12. Because Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence that the combination would render Honma unsatisfactory for its intended purposes and, furthermore, premises their arguments on the unfounded conclusion that the combination would result in an overall larger display size, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Therefore, on the record before us, Appellants have provided insufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that the combination of references asserted by the Examiner is improper. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Honma, Shotz, and Wada and, for the same reasons, sustain the rejections of independent claims 8 and 12 over Honma and Shotz together with the rejections of dependent claims 2-6, 9-11 and 13-15 not separately argued. CONCLUSION We find the Examiner did not err in combining Honma and Shotz. Appeal 2011-006229 Application 11/620,208 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6 and 8-15 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation