HARMAN BECKER AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS GMBHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 2, 20202019005075 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation