Ex Parte Augst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2017

12725153 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2017)

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.
12/725,153 03/16/2010 Alexander AUGST 080437.62249US 8649
23911 7590
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2017 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):
edocket @ crowell. com
tche @ crowell. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER AUGST
Appeal 2016-006995
Application 12/725,1531
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 4—15, which constitute of all of the claims
pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Bayerische Motoren
Werke Aktiengesellschaft. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. App. Br. 15.
Appeal 2016-006995
Application 12/725,153
INVENTION
Appellant’s application relates to a method for providing driver
information in a motor vehicle. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method for providing information to a driver in a motor
vehicle, the method comprising the acts of:
capturing an image flow containing images of at least one
part of an environment of the motor vehicle using a recording
device of the motor vehicle;
reproducing a selected image section of the image flow
on a display unit in an interior of the motor vehicle, wherein the
selected image section is a reduced section of the image flow
corresponding to an environmental section of the environment
of the motor vehicle;
arranging the selected image section within a display
surface of the display unit in a position corresponding to that of
the environmental section relative to the motor vehicle, wherein
the display surface is larger than a display area of the selected
image section;
automatically modifying via a display control unit of the
motor vehicle the environmental section to be displayed for the
driver by shifting the selected image section within the image
flow, and wherein the position in which the selected image
section is arranged within the display surface is shifted such
that the position of the selected image section continues to
correspond to the environmental section displayed for the driver
following said automatically modifying; and
during the reproducing of the selected image section, in
addition to a representation of the environmental section,
displaying for the driver at least first optical information that
indicates a position of the currently-represented environmental
section relative to the motor vehicle, wherein the first optical
information comprises a symbolic representation that is distinct
from and in addition to the representation of the environmental
section.
2
Appeal 2016-006995
Application 12/725,153
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 5—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Okada et al. (US 2005/0012685 Al;
published Jan. 20, 2005) (“Okada”), Tanaka et al. (US 2005/0033495 Al;
published Feb. 10, 2005) (“Tanaka”), and Suzuki (US 7,206,017 Bl; issued
Apr. 17, 2007).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Okada, Tanaka, Suzuki, and Schofield et al. (US
7,526,103 B2; issued Apr. 28, 2009) (“Schofield”).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Okada teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except “wherein the display surface is
larger than a display area of the selected image section,” for which the
Examiner relied on Tanaka, and “wherein the position in which the selected
image section is arranged within the display surface is shifted such that the
position of the selected image section continues to correspond to the
environmental section displayed for the driver following said automatically
modifying” and
during the reproducing of the selected image section, in
addition to a representation of the environmental section,
displaying for the driver at least first optical information that
indicates a position of the currently-represented environmental
section relative to the motor vehicle, wherein the first optical
information comprises a symbolic representation that is distinct
from and in addition to the representation of the environmental
section,
for which the Examiner relied on Suzuki. Final Act. 2-4.
3
Appeal 2016-006995
Application 12/725,153
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not cited sufficient
support in Suzuki for the teaching of the limitation “the position in which the
selected image section is arranged within the display surface is shifted such
that the position of the selected image section continues to correspond to the
environmental section displayed for the driver following said automatically
modifying” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 9. In particular, Suzuki is
directed to manually scrolling through a panoramic image when the image is
larger than the available display area. See e.g., Suzuki col. 3:65—67. Suzuki
teaches at column 5, lines 45—50, cited by the Examiner, that “[w]hen the
aspect ratio of an image to be displayed is greater than that of the display
area 70, the image can be divided and displayed over plural times
automatically.” Suzuki col. 5:45—50 (emphasis added). Even assuming
Suzuki discloses automatically scrolling a panoramic image that is larger
than the display area, the cited teachings of Suzuki, without more, are
insufficient to teach the disputed limitation. Specifically, the identified
disclosure in Suzuki, at most, teaches or suggests shifting the portion of the
image section within the image flow. However, we see nothing in Suzuki
that teaches or suggests the subsequent portion of the disputed limitation,
which requires shifting the position within the display surface in which an
image section is displayed. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not shown with sufficient clarity that Suzuki teaches the
disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, or of dependent claims 4—15, which fall with claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-006995
Application 12/725,153
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 4—15.
REVERSED
5