HARMAN BECKER AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2020

14654441 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020)

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.
14/654,441 06/19/2015 Hans Roth P13230US01 4387
116844 7590 11/02/2020
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 SW Broadway
Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
EXAMINER
LAFONTANT, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2020 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):
usptomail@mccrus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HANS ROTH, OLAF PREISSNER, and
CHRISTOPH REIFENRATH
___________

Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–16, and 18–22. Claims 4 and 17
have been cancelled.
An oral hearing was held on September 10, 2020. The record will
include a written transcript of the oral hearing. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a communication system for a vehicle.
(¶ 1.)
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, and 21, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system for a vehicle, comprising a central unit
and an input device,
wherein the central unit has a first interface for
connecting to a first mobile device and a second interface for
connecting to a second mobile device,
wherein the central unit is configured to assign the first
mobile device to a driver and the second mobile device to a
passenger in the vehicle,
wherein the central unit is configured to output
information on a call directed to the first mobile device to at
least one of:
a display of the vehicle as graphical data, and

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Harman
Becker Automotive Systems GmbH. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

3
at least one loudspeaker of the vehicle as an audio signal,
wherein the central unit is configured to detect,
responsive to the output of the information, a user input by
means of the input device during the outputting of the
information, and
wherein the central unit is configured to accept, reject,
and redirect the call based on the detection of the user input,
including being configured to perform an active, call-specific,
ad hoc redirection of the call to the second mobile device based
on the detection of the user input being a gesture input, and
further being configured to one of reject and accept the call
alternatively thereto.

3. The system according to claim 2,
wherein the first near field communication device is
positioned toward a first retainer for the first mobile device,
and
wherein the second near field communication device is
positioned toward a second retainer for the second mobile
device.

6. The system according to claim 1,
wherein the input device has a sensor for contactless
input,
wherein the user input comprises a hand gesture,
wherein the sensor is arranged in a dashboard of the
vehicle facing an area of a steering wheel of the vehicle, and
wherein the central unit and the sensor are configured to
distinguish between the user input and a steering movement of
a hand.

11. The system according to claim 1,
wherein the central unit is configured to output the
information via an information image presented on the display,
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

4
wherein the central unit is further configured to
additionally redirect the call automatically, and
wherein, responsive to redirecting the call, the central
unit is configured to reduce impairment of a view of a driver of
the vehicle by making the information image smaller and
moving a position of the information image.

14. A system for a vehicle, comprising a central unit,
the central unit comprising a first interface for connecting to a
first mobile device, and the central unit configured to:
assign the first mobile device to a driver,
estimate one element of a set of traffic situations based
on navigation data,
output an audio message or a written message assigned
to the one element, and
send the audio message or the written message to a
calling party.

21. The system according to claim 1, wherein the input
device comprises at least one of an infrared sensor and a
camera, wherein the user input comprises a swipe gesture
sensed by one or more of the infrared sensor and the camera
during the outputting of information by the central unit, and
wherein the active, call-specific, ad hoc redirection of the call to
the second mobile device is initiated by the swipe gesture that is
detected via the input device.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Nagase US 8,478,518 B2 July 2, 2013
Bennett et al. US 8,841,929 B2 Sept. 23, 2014
Tadayon et al. US 2011/0105097 A1 May 5, 2011
Lim et al. US 2011/0153118 A1 June 23, 2011
Midha US 2013/0208938 A1 Aug. 15, 2013
Huang (as translated) CN 1863257 A Nov. 15, 2006

Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

5
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tadayon, Lim, and Midha.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tadayon, Huang, Midha, and Lim.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tadayon and Nagase.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tadayon, Midha, Lim, and Bennett.

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Tadayon, Lim, and Midha
Claims 1, 2, 7–9, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 12–
15; see also Reply Br. 3–6) that the combination of Tadayon, Lim, and
Midha would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “central unit is configured to accept, reject, and
redirect the call.”
The Examiner found that localized unit (702) of Tadayon, which
communicates with mobile devices, corresponds to the limitation “central
unit.” (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner also found that localized unit (702) of
Tadayon, which forwards calls from a first device to a second device via
Bluetooth, corresponds to the limitation “redirect the call.” (Id. at 6.) The
Examiner further found that controller 16 of Midha, which include gesture
controls functions to forward, accept, or reject phone calls, corresponds to
the limitation “configured to accept, reject, and redirect the call.” (Id. at 7.)
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

6
The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious . . . to combine
Tadayon and Midha as to obtain an efficient and dynamic vehicle telephone
system” because “Tadayon can use Midha features so as to be able to allow
some gesture control for incoming call to the driver even if the car is
running.” (Id. at 8 (emphases omitted); see also Ans. 8.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Tadayon relates to controlling mobile device functions and features
that “limit[] or disable[] the use of some of mobile device features which
could cause distraction to the user when the user is engaged in another
activity.” (¶ 11.) Figure 7(a) of Tadayon illustrates one embodiment, which
includes localized unit (702) integrated with a transceiver, such that the
“transceiver communicates (706) with the mobile device (704) when mobile
device is on its effective range” and the “localized device communicates
(710) with the vehicle’s computer/control (708) system or sensors.” (¶ 55.)
Moreover, in another embodiment, Tadayon explains the following:
In one embodiment, when modifying a feature on a
mobile device, if a 2nd mobile device is available, the limited
functionality is used on the 2nd mobile device, by forwarding
calls and/or messages to the 2nd mobile device, directly, from
the limited mobile device, e.g. via a communication link, such
as Bluetooth.
(¶ 215.) Because Tadayon explains that localized unit (702) can
communicate with mobile device (704), such that the first mobile device can
forward calls to the second mobile device, Tadayon teaches the limitation
“central unit is configured to . . . redirect the call.”
Midha relates to clothing with inbuilt devices “for communication . . .
without holding the devices in user’s hands in a more practical, more
efficient, cost effective and environment friendly manner.” (¶ 1.) Figure 2
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

7
of Midha illustrates apparel 11 having “controller 16 . . . for receiving input
from the user to control and operate the functional device 22” (¶ 23), such
that functional device 22 is a mobile phone (¶ 25). Midha explains that
“controller 16 includes at[ ]least one of skip, forward, rewind, accept phone
calls, [and] reject phone calls . . . to control the electronic devices.” (¶ 37.)
Moreover, Midha explains that controller 16 can have control buttons or
switches (¶ 43) and “[t]he gesture controls functions are capable of
controlling the devices [22] with embedded gesture technology” (¶ 37).
Because Midha explains controller 16 can “skip, forward, rewind, accept
phone calls, [and] reject phone calls,” Midha teaches the limitation
“configured to accept, reject, and redirect the call.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating controller 16 of Midha, which has control buttons for
forwarding, accepting, or rejecting phone calls, with localized unit (702) of
Tadayon, which forwards calls between two mobile phones, would improve
Tadayon by providing the user with the ability to accept, reject, or forward a
phone call. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(“[I]f 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.”). Alternatively, combining Midha
and Tadayon is nothing more than incorporating the known controller 16 of
Midha, which has control buttons for accepting or rejecting phone calls, with
the known localized unit (702) of Tadayon, which forwards calls between
two mobile phones, to yield predictable results. See id. at 416 (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

8
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Accordingly,
we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 8) that modifying Tadayon to
include controller 16 of Midha would have been obvious.
First, Appellant argues that “Midha does not disclose that the ‘skip,’
‘forward,’ and ‘rewind’ functionality relates to incoming phone calls” and
“there is no evidence to suggest that any of the above terms (‘skip,’
‘forward,’ ‘rewind’) relate to incoming calls, as the general terms ‘skip,’
‘forward,’ and ‘rewind’ may relate to many different contexts, such as
control of playback of media that is already received/stored.” (Appeal
Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3–4.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Midha
explains that “controller 16 includes at least one of skip, forward, rewind,
accept phone calls, [and] reject phone calls.” (¶ 37.) Thus, at a minimum,
Midha expressly teaches to “accept” or “reject” a phone call, as recited in
claim 1.
Second, Appellant argues that “Midha also fails to provide any
disclosure of a device to which an incoming phone call is forwarded.”
(Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3–4.) Even if Appellant is correct that
Midha does not “forward” phone calls, the Examiner also cited to Tadayon,
which explains one embodiment for “forwarding calls and/or messages to
the 2nd mobile device, directly, from the limited mobile device.” (¶ 215.)
Last, Appellant argues that “the Office has not even articulated how
the teaching of Midha is asserted to be combined with Tadayon.” (Appeal
Br. 13.) In particular, Appellant argues that “the Office has not indicated
how the controller of Midha is used with the Localized Unit 702 of Tadayon,
each of which is cited to teach features relating to the central unit recited in
claim 1.” (Id.) Similarly, Appellant argues that “[t]he Office has not
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

9
provided sufficient guidance regarding how such a combined system would
handle the receipt of input for forwarding a phone call (or for accepting or
rejecting a phone call) while the first and/or second mobile device of
Tadayon is experiencing limited or reduced functionality.” (Appeal Br. 15;
see also Reply Br. 3–6.) As discussed previously, the combination of Midha
and Tadayon is based upon incorporating controller 16 of Midha, which has
control buttons for accepting or rejecting phone calls, with localized unit
(702) of Tadayon, which forwards calls between two mobile phones.
(Ans. 8.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Tadayon,
Lim, and Midha would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “central unit is configured to accept, reject, and
redirect the call.”
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal
Br. 19–21) that the combination of Tadayon, Lim, and Midha would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
“central unit is configured to detect, responsive to the output of the
information, a user input by means of the input device during the outputting
of the information.”
The Examiner found that localized unit (702) of Tadayon, which
communicates with mobile devices, corresponds to the limitation “central
unit.” (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner also found that telephone sound output
by the speakers of Tadayon corresponds to the limitation “output of the
information.” (Id. at 6.) Moreover, the Examiner found that controller 16 of
Midha, which include gesture controls functions to accept or reject phone
calls, corresponds to the limitation “responsive to . . . a user input by means
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

10
of the input device during the outputting of the information.” (Id. at 7.) We
agree with the Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Figure 7(a) of Tadayon illustrates one
embodiment, which includes localized unit (702) integrated with the
transceiver, such that the “transceiver communicates (706) with the mobile
device (704) when mobile device is on its effective range” and the “localized
device communicates (710) with the vehicle’s computer/control (708)
system or sensors.” (¶ 55.) Moreover, Tadayon explains that “the sound
goes from top speakers in the car for telephone voice or music to speakers
on the foot-level, underneath, or transfer the sound to speakers on the back
seats, to focus/de-focus and alert the user or listener/driver about the
telephone, or put more focus on the road.” (¶ 216.) Because Tadayon
explains that localized unit (702) communicates with mobile device (704),
such that telephonic sounds can be transferred to speakers, Tadayon teaches
the limitation “central unit is configured to detect . . . to the output of the
information.”
As discussed previously, Midha explains that “controller 16 includes
at least one of skip, forward, rewind, accept phone calls, reject phone calls.”
(¶ 37.) Moreover, Midha explains that controller 16 can have control
buttons or switches (¶ 43) and “[t]he gesture controls functions are capable
of controlling the devices [22] with embedded gesture technology” (¶ 37).
Because Midha explains that controller 16 includes buttons or switches to
accept or reject phone calls, Midha teaches the limitation “responsive to . . .
a user input by means of the input device during the outputting of the
information.”
Appellant argues the following:
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

11
[T]he sensors disclosed [in paragraph 92 of Tadayon] are
utilized to determine information used to send an appropriate
code to a mobile device to trigger a modification of a feature of
the mobile device. There is no disclosure of these sensors of
Tadayon detecting user input. The vehicle sensors of Tadayon
are described as providing for the automatic feature
modification of the mobile device, which is described in
paragraphs [0097]-[0099] as including automatic forwarding of
phone calls to another mobile device. Accordingly, the vehicle
sensors of Tadayon provide for a predetermined, automatic
handling of incoming calls, rather than the accepting, rejecting,
and redirecting of calls based on user input required by claim 1.
(Appeal Br. 19–20.) However, the Examiner cited to Midha, rather than
Tadayon, for teaching the limitation “a user input by means of the input
device.” (Final Act. 6–7.) The rejection of claim 1 is based on the
combination of Tadayon, Lim, and Midha, and Appellant cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant further argues that “there is no evidence to suggest that any
of the above terms (‘skip,’ ‘forward,’ or ‘rewind’) relate to incoming calls,
and the characterization by the Office of Midha as teaching a controller that
can ‘accept, forward, reject, and skip phone calls’ is improper and is not
supported by the disclosure in Midha (e.g., paragraph [0037] of Midha).”
(Appeal Br. 21.) Again, Midha explains that “controller 16 includes
at[ ]least one of skip, forward, rewind, accept phone calls, [and] reject phone
calls, stop.” (¶ 37.) Moreover, even if Appellant is correct that Midha does
not “forward” phone calls, the Examiner also cited to Tadayon, which
explains one embodiment for “forwarding calls and/or messages to the 2nd
mobile device, directly, from the limited mobile device.” (¶ 215.)
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

12
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Tadayon,
Lim, and Midha would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “central unit is configured to detect, responsive to the
output of the information, a user input by means of the input device during
the outputting of the information.”
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 23–
24; see also Reply Br. 7–8) that the combination of Tadayon, Lim, and
Midha would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “configured to perform an active, call-specific, ad hoc
redirection of the call to the second mobile device based on the detection of
the user input being a gesture input.”
The Examiner found that localized unit (702) of Tadayon, which
forwards calls from a first device to a second device via Bluetooth,
corresponds to the limitation “configured to perform an active, call-specific,
ad hoc redirection of the call to the second mobile device.” (Final Act. 6.)
The Examiner further found that controller 16 of Midha, having gesture
controls functions corresponds to the limitation “based on the detection of
the user input being a gesture input.” (Id. at 7.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Tadayon explains that “when modifying a
feature on a mobile device, if a 2nd mobile device is available, the limited
functionality is used on the 2nd mobile device, by forwarding calls and/or
messages to the 2nd mobile device.” (¶ 215.) Because Tadayon explains
that calls or messages are forwarded from the mobile phone with limited
functionality to the second mobile device, Tadayon teaches the limitation
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

13
“configured to perform an active, call-specific, ad hoc redirection of the call
to the second mobile device.”
Also discussed previously, Midha explains that “controller 16
includes at least one of skip, forward, rewind, accept phone calls, [and]
reject phone calls.” (¶ 37.) Moreover, Midha explains that controller 16 can
have control buttons or switches (¶ 43) and “[t]he gesture controls functions
are capable of controlling the devices [22] with embedded gesture
technology” (¶ 37). Because Midha explains that controller 16 of Midha
includes gesture controls functions, Midha teaches the limitation “based on
the detection of the user input being a gesture input.”
Appellant argues the following:
A user of the system of Tadayon is not provided with an input
mechanism to decide, for each incoming call, whether to accept,
reject, or redirect that call. Instead, Tadayon discloses an
automatic redirection that is performed based on predefined
rules (e.g., location-based rules, such as the disclosed
redirection due to a mobile device’s entrance in an effective
range of a transceiver indicating that the mobile device is close
to a driver’s side of the vehicle . . .).
(Appeal Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 7–8.) However, the Examiner also cited
to Midha, rather than Tadayon, for teaching the limitation “based on the
detection of the user input being a gesture input.” (Final Act. 7.) Again, the
rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Tadayon, Lim, and
Midha, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Appellant further argues
even if the “forward” function of Midha were to relate to phone
calls . . . , there is no disclosure in Midha regarding a
mechanism for forwarding a call, and thus Midha fails to
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

14
disclose when such a call may be forwarded, what type of input
is used to forward a call, where a call is forwarded, etc.
(Appeal Br. 24.) Even if Appellant is correct that Midha does not “forward”
phone calls, the Examiner also cited to Tadayon, which explains one
embodiment for “forwarding calls and/or messages to the 2nd mobile device,
directly, from the limited mobile device.” (¶ 215.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Tadayon,
Lim, and Midha would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “configured to perform an active, call-specific, ad hoc
redirection of the call to the second mobile device based on the detection of
the user input being a gesture input.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2, 7–9, 12, 13, and 16 depend from claim 1, and
Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7–9,
12, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 15 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the
rejection of claim 15, as well as dependent claims 18–20 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

Claim 3
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 27) that the
combination of Tadayon, Lim, and Midha would not have rendered obvious
dependent claim 3, which includes the limitations “wherein the first near
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

15
field communication device is positioned toward a first retainer for the first
mobile device” and “wherein the second near field communication device is
positioned toward a second retainer for the second mobile device.”
The Examiner found that the identification and location of each
mobile device corresponds to the limitations “a first retainer for the first
mobile device” and “a second retainer for the second mobile device.” (Final
Act. 10; see also Ans. 12.) In particular, the Examiner found that “one
retainer is interpreted as the driver carrying the one [mobile device] in the
driver seat position and the other retainer is interpreted as the passenger
carrying the other [mobile device] in the passenger seat position.” (Ans. 12.)
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Dependent claim 3 recites “a first retainer for the first mobile device”
and “a second retainer for the second mobile device” (emphases added).
One relevant plain meaning for “retainer” is “any of various devices used for
holding something.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 999
(10th ed. 1999). Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s
Specification, which discloses that “[a]ccording to one embodiment in
FIG. 3, a first retainer 191 for first mobile device 791 may be positioned
toward driver 701, and a second retainer 192 for second mobile device 792
may be positioned toward passenger 702.” (Spec. ¶ 64 (emphases added.))
Moreover, Appellant’s Figure 3 illustrates first retainer 191 and second
retainer 192 as rectangular slots in the center console for holding first mobile
device 791 and second mobile device 792, respectively. Thus, applying the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we
interpret the limitation “retainer” as a device for holding something (e.g.,
first mobile device 791 and second mobile device 792).
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

16
Tadayon explains that “[b]ased on the identifications of the mobile
devices (e.g., cellular telephone numbers or other identifying features such
as SIMS), the identity of the holders are determined” (¶ 153) and “a GPS or
a triangulation technique is used to estimate the location of the vehicle (e.g.,
using the mobile device being carries in the vehicle) at various times (e.g.,
sampled every 10 seconds)” (¶ 179).
Although the Examiner cited to Tadayon for determining the identify
and location of each mobile device, the Examiner has provided insufficient
evidence to support a finding that Tadayon teaches the limitations “a first
retainer for the first mobile device” and “a second retainer for the second
mobile device.” In particular, Tadayon is silent with respect to the cited
“retainer,” which we interpret as a device for holding something (e.g., a
mobile device). Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated
that Tadayon teaches the limitation “a first retainer for the first mobile
device” and “a second retainer for the second mobile device,” as recited in
claim 3. Moreover, Lim and Midha do not cure the deficiencies of Tadayon.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as follows:
For example, Tadayon discloses that a passenger may be
identified as a driver’s parents or as individuals other than the
driver’s parents, and different restrictions may be placed on the
driver’s phone based on whether there is a passenger and
whether that passenger is a parent. Tadayon discloses
identifying passengers, their mobile devices, and their locations
via local transceivers. However, Tadayon fails to disclose a
first retainer for a first mobile device and a second retainer for a
second mobile device, as recited in claim 3. Instead, as shown
in Figs. 1-3(a) of Tadayon, the mobile devices in the vehicle
appear to be floating within the vehicle and are not associated
with any retainer.
(Appeal Br. 27.)
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

17
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claim 5
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 28; see
also Reply Br. 8–9) that the combination of Tadayon, Lim, and Midha
would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 5, which includes the
limitation “wherein the central unit is configured to change the information
after the redirection of the call.”
The Examiner found that localized unit (702) of Tadayon, which can
include a reply message or an audio tone/sound for an answering service,
corresponds to the limitation “wherein the central unit is configured to
change the information after the redirection of the call.” (Ans. 12–13.) We
agree with the Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Figure 7(a) of Tadayon illustrates one
embodiment, which includes localized unit (702) integrated with the
transceiver, such that the “transceiver communicates (706) with the mobile
device (704) when mobile device is on its effective range” and the “localized
device communicates (710) with the vehicle’s computer/control (708)
system or sensors.” (¶ 55.) Moreover, in one embodiment, Tadayon
explains that “mobile device [(704)] . . . sends a message to a service at the
telephone service provider with a code indicating e.g. to modify the reply
message, in answering service and/or hold incoming calls and direct them
straight to the answering service” and “the telephone service sends a
message to the mobile device, indicating that a call went straight to the
answering service, e.g. indicating to the user with a special audio
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

18
tone/sound.” (¶ 213.) Because mobile device (704) of Tadayon can send a
reply message to the caller or uses a special audio tone/sound to indicate that
a message has been sent to an answering service, Tadayon teaches the
limitation “wherein the central unit is configured to change the information
after the redirection of the call.”
Appellant argues that “[d]isabling the texting function and/or
withholding sending text messages refers to changes in the
functionality/permissions of the mobile device [in paragraphs 172-175 of
Tadayon]” and “does not have any bearing on information on a call directed
to a first mobile device.” (Appeal Br. 28; see also Reply Br. 8.) However,
the Examiner also cited to the embodiment in paragraph 213 of Tadayon for
teaching the limitation “wherein the central unit is configured to change the
information after the redirection of the call.” Appellant has not presented
any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings
with respect paragraph 213 of Tadayon, as discussed above, are in error.
Appellant further argues that “paragraph [0216] states that the sound
that is output by the top speakers (which may be music or a ‘telephone
voice’) may be moved to foot-level speakers ‘to focus/de-focus and alert the
user or listener/driver about the telephone, or put more focus on the road, to
prevent accidents’” and “even if changing which speakers output the music
or telephone voice could be considered ‘changing the information,’ Tadayon
still does not disclose that the changing of the information occurs after
redirection of the call.” (Reply Br. 9.) Again, the Examiner also cited to the
embodiment in paragraph 213 of Tadayon for teaching the limitation
“wherein the central unit is configured to change the information after the
redirection of the call.”
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

19
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Tadayon,
Lim, and Midha would have rendered obvious dependent claim 5, which
includes the limitation “wherein the central unit is configured to change the
information after the redirection of the call.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Claim 11
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 32) that the
combination of Tadayon, Lim, and Midha would not have rendered obvious
dependent claim 11, which includes the limitation “making the information
image smaller and moving a position of the information image.”
The Examiner found that screen images of a user interface, as
illustrated in Figure 8 of Lim, which provide alert information, corresponds
to the limitation “making the information image smaller and moving a
position of the information image.” (Final Act. 12–13; see also Ans. 15.) In
particular, the Examiner found that “a display unit can merely perform this
function” (Final Act. 13 (emphasis omitted)) and “presenting the text on the
display is broad enough to reject to claim 11” (Ans. 15). We do not agree
with the Examiner’s findings.
Lim relates to a “portable device having a telematics function using
human body communication.” (¶ 3.) Figure 8 of Lim illustrates “screen
images of a user interface displayed in the process of executing the operation
alert information notification function during parking.” (¶ 125.) In
particular, Lim explains that “the mobile terminal displays the provided
impact detection information and/or break-in attempt information on the
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

20
display unit.” (¶ 127.) For example, from Figure 8 of Lim, the text
“NOTIFICATION OF ALERT INFORMATION DURING PARKING,”
“IMPACT APPLIED,” “PLEASE CHECK,” and “UNAUTHORIZED
UNLOCKING ATTEMPT DETECTED” are relatively the same size.
Although the Examiner cited to Figure 8 of Lim, the Examiner has
provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Lim teaches the
limitation “making the information image smaller and moving a position of
the information image.” In particular, Figure 8 of Lim illustrates that the
mobile terminal displays are relatively the same size text, and Lim is silent
with respect to moving the position of such text. Thus, on this record, the
Examiner has not demonstrated that Lim teaches the limitation “making the
information image smaller and moving a position of the information image,”
as recited in claim 11. Moreover, Tadayon and Midha do not cure the
deficiencies of Lim.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as follows:
Paragraphs [0139]-[0142] of Lim, cited as disclosing the
claimed making an information image smaller and moving a
position of the information image, disclose displaying a phone
number and call reception message through a display unit.
However, there is no disclosure in Lim of making an
information image smaller and moving a position of the
information image, as required by claim 11.
(Appeal Br. 32.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

21
Claims 21 and 22
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 12–13) that
the combination of Tadayon, Lim, and Midha would not have rendered
obvious dependent claim 21, which includes the limitation “the user input
comprises a swipe gesture.”
The Examiner found that controller 16 of Midha, which includes
gesture control functions, corresponds to the limitation “the user input
comprises a swipe gesture.” (Ans. 16.) We do not agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Midha explains that controller 16 can have
control buttons or switches (¶ 43) and “[t]he gesture controls functions are
capable of controlling the devices [22] with embedded gesture technology”
(¶ 37).
Although, the Examiner cited to the “gesture controls” of Midha, the
Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Midha
teaches the limitation “the user input comprises a swipe gesture.” In
particular, Midha explains that controller 16 can have control buttons or
switches but does not mention “a swipe gesture,” as required by claim 21.
Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Midha teaches
the limitation “the user input comprises a swipe gesture,” as recited in
claim 21. Moreover, Tadayon and Lim do not cure the deficiencies of
Midha.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as follows:
Midha merely states that the controller can include gesture
control functions that “are capable of controlling the devices
with embedded gesture technology.” Midha does not disclose
any particular type of sensor, whether image sensors, infrared
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

22
sensors, motion sensors, position sensors, or other types of
sensors, that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate
could be utilized to detect gesture input. Thus, Midha does not
disclose a swipe gesture sensed by one or more of an infrared
sensor and a camera.
(Reply Br. 12–13.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 22 depends from claim 21. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 21.

§ 103 Rejection—Tadayon, Huang, Midha, and Lim
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 10 separately (Appeal Br. 46), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant argues that “Huang fails to
cure the above-described deficiencies of Tadayon, Midha, and Lim.” (Id.)
In particular, Appellant argues the following:
For example, Huang provides no disclosure regarding the
handling of incoming calls, and thus fails to disclose, among
other elements, a central unit configured to accept, reject, and
redirect a call. Huang further fails to disclose a central unit
configured to perform an active, call-specific, ad hoc
redirection of the call to the second mobile device based on the
detection of the user input being a gesture input.
(Id.) We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Accordingly, we sustain
this rejection.

Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

23
§ 103 Rejection—Tadayon and Nagase
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 51–55; see
also Reply Br. 15–16) that the combination of Tadayon and Nagase would
not have rendered obvious independent claim 14, which includes the
limitations “estimate one element of a set of traffic situations,” “output an
audio message or a written message assigned to the one element,” and “send
the audio message or the written message to a calling party.”
The Examiner found that a message or warning sent to mobile device
(704) of Tadayon and the reply message to the caller of Tadayon collectively
correspond to the limitations “output an audio message or a written message
assigned to the one element” and “send the audio message or the written
message to a calling party.” (Final Act. 20; see also Ans. 24.) The
Examiner also found that that the navigation device of Nagase, which
estimates traffic conditions, corresponds to the limitation “traffic situations.”
(Ans. 24.) The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to
someone of ordinary skill . . . to combine Tadayon and Nagase as to obtain
an efficient Navigation system” (Final Act. 21 (emphasis omitted)) because
“Tadayon can use the acquiring navigation feature from Nagase to transmit
detected traffic data to a calling party just as when the driver is unable to
pick up the phone” (Ans. 24 (emphasis omitted)). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Tadayon explains that mobile device (704) can receive additional
information, such as “vehicle status (e.g. speed), road status (e.g., rainy),
passenger status, and/or information (e.g., from vehicle’s sensors such as
outside lighting) are used to send an appropriate code to the mobile device.”
(¶ 92.) In one embodiment, Tadayon explains that a driver can activate a
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

24
warning message, such that “the message or warning can go to the same
user, and/or his/her parents, his/her boss, third party (e.g. police), or anybody
designated by the user or others.” (¶ 120.) In another embodiment, a
“special answering reply is used at the answering service, to indicate to the
caller that, e.g. ‘The callee is currently driving, and cannot accept a phone
call.’” (¶ 213.) Because Tadayon explains that the user of mobile device
(704) can activate a warning message to a caller, Tadayon teaches the
limitations “output an audio message or a written message assigned to the
one element” and “send the audio message or the written message to a
calling party.”
Nagase “relates to a traffic information processing system” (col. 1,
ll. 9–10), in particular, “[a] navigation device mounted in a vehicle
determines a traffic condition when the vehicle travels in a road zone along a
facility” (Abstract). Because the navigation device of Nagase determines
traffic conditions, Nagase teaches the limitation “estimate one element of a
set of traffic situations.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating traffic conditions from the navigation device of Nagase, with
mobile device (704) of Tadayon, which collects additional information (e.g.,
road status) to be used as a special reply message, would improve Tadayon
by providing the user with traffic information. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417
(“[I]f 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.”). Alternatively, combining Nagase
and Tadayon is nothing more than incorporating the known traffic
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

25
conditions from the navigation device of Nagase, with the known mobile
device (704) of Tadayon, which provides traffic data to the user, to yield
predictable results. See id. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
(Final Act. 21) that modifying Tadayon to include the traffic information of
Nagase would have been obvious.
First, Appellant argues the following:
In contrast, Tadayon fails to disclose sending, to a calling party,
an audio or written message assigned to an element of a set of
traffic situations based on navigation data. For example,
paragraph [0092] of Tadayon discloses using information such
as a vehicle status (e.g., speed), road status (e.g., rainy),
passenger status, and/or other information to send an
appropriate code to a mobile device to indicate a modification
of a feature of the mobile device. However, the above-
described information in Tadayon is not disclosed as including
an element of a set of traffic situations. Furthermore, the
above-described information is not disclosed as being sent to a
calling party.
(Appeal Br. 51.) However, the Examiner cited to Nagase, rather than
Tadayon, for teaching the limitation “estimate one element of a set of traffic
situations.” (Ans. 24.) Again, the rejection of claim 14 is based on the
combination of Tadayon and Nagase, and Appellant cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at
426. Moreover, as found by the Examiner, Tadayon explains that a “special
answering reply is used at the answering service, to indicate to the caller
that, e.g. ‘The callee is currently driving, and cannot accept a phone call.’”
(¶ 213.)
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

26
Second, Appellant argues that “Nagase is provided as an audio
message (voice guidance regarding approaching congestion) and displayed
data (a map screen showing a traffic guidance display) that is presented
within the vehicle, rather than being sent to a calling party,” but “Nagase
fails to provide any disclosure regarding calls, and thus fails to disclose
sending any information to a calling party.” (Appeal Br. 52.) However, the
Examiner cited to Tadayon, rather than Nagase, for teaching the limitation
“send the audio message or the written message to a calling party.” (Final
Act. 20.) Again, the rejection of claim 14 is based on the combination of
Tadayon and Nagase, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Third, Appellant argues that
if the system of Tadayon were to use the “Nagase art” to predict
traffic conditions, as suggested by the Office, the resulting
system would still fail to provide a central unit that is
configured to send, to a calling party, an audio message or a
written message assigned to one element of a set of traffic
situations, as required by claim 14.
(Appeal Br. 52–53.) In particular, Appellant argues that “adding the features
of Nagase to Tadayon would, at best, modify the navigation features of
Tadayon (e.g., enabling the system of Tadayon to display congestion
information on a map as disclosed by Nagase).” (Id. at 53.) However, the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combing the references is based upon
incorporating the “traffic conditions” of Nagase into the special answering
reply of Tadayon. (Ans. 24.)
Last, Appellant argues that
the Office has not articulated the reasons why it would have
been obvious to modify the system of Tadayon to estimate one
element of a set of traffic situations based on navigation data
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

27
and send, to a calling party, an audio message or a written
message assigned to the one element.
(Appeal Br. 55; see also Reply Br. 15–16.) Contrary to Appellant’s
arguments, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining the
references was based upon the improvement of a similar device in the same
way as in the prior art. (Ans. 24.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Tadayon
and Nagase would have rendered obvious independent claim 14, which
includes the limitations “estimate one element of a set of traffic situations,”
“output an audio message or a written message assigned to the one element,”
and “send the audio message or the written message to a calling party.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

§ 103 Rejection—Tadayon, Midha, Lim, and Bennett
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 58) that the
combination of Tadayon, Midha, Lim, and Bennett would not have rendered
obvious dependent claim 6, which includes the limitation “the central unit
and the sensor are configured to distinguish between the user input and a
steering movement of a hand.”
The Examiner found that the sensor element of Bennett, located on a
steering wheel, corresponds to the limitation “the sensor . . . configured to
distinguish between the user input and a steering movement of a hand.”
(Final Act. 22.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Bennett “relates to a sensor system in a steering wheel of a vehicle.”
(Col. 1, ll. 15–16.) Bennett explains the following:
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

28
The sensor elements are arranged in the steering wheel such
that the raw and/or signal conditions of the sensor element
signal or derivative(s) of the signal can be used directly and/or
compared in an algorithm to determine steering wheel states
(e.g., “hands on the wheel”, the steering wheel being operated
by another body part, the steering wheel being tapped, etc.).
(Col. 3, ll. 28–34.)
Although the Examiner cited to the sensor elements of Bennett, which
detects if a driver is touching the steering wheel, the Examiner has provided
insufficient evidence to support a finding that Bennett teaches the limitation
“the sensor . . . configured to distinguish between the user input and a
steering movement of a hand.” In particular, while the sensor elements can
detect if the driver is contacting the steering wheel, the Examiner has not
sufficiently reasoned how such sensor elements are compared to other hand
motions to arrive at the limitation “the sensor . . . configured to distinguish
between the user input and a steering movement of a hand.” Thus, on this
record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Bennett teaches the
limitation “the sensor . . . configured to distinguish between the user input
and a steering movement of a hand,” as recited in claim 6. Moreover,
Tadayon, Midha, and Lim do not cure the deficiencies of Bennett.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as follows:
However, Bennett discloses using steering wheel-mounted
sensors to control the display of alerts regarding safe driving
(e.g., “please put both hands on the steering wheel” may be
output if a non-grasp contact of the steering wheel is detected
. . .). The Office has not articulated how the features of Bennett
could be incorporated in the combined system of Tadayon,
Midha, and Lim so as to control output of information on a call
instead of the output of feedback regarding steering wheel
usage as taught be Bennett.
(Appeal Br. 58 (citation omitted).)
Appeal 2019-005075
Application 14/654,441

29
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7–10, 12, 13–16,
and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 6, 11, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 7–9,
11–13, 15,
16, 18–22
103 Tadayon, Lim,
Midha
1, 2, 5, 7–9,
12, 13, 15,
16, 18–20
3, 11, 21,
22
10 103 Tadayon, Huang,
Midha, Lim
10
14 103 Tadayon, Nagase 14
6 103 Tadayon, Midha,
Lim, Bennett
6
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5, 7–
10, 12, 13–
16, 18–20
3, 6, 11, 21,
22

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) (2018).

AFFIRMED IN PART