10658490 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 20, 2012)

Ex Parte Hagermoser et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 20, 2012

10658490 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte E. SCOTT HAGERMOSER and MICHAEL J. ROBRECHT ____________ Appeal 2010-002910 Application 10/658,490 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before FRED E. MCKELVEY, KEVIN TURNER, and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002910 Application 10/658,490 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 23-40, and 42 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 23, and 28 are independent. All claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We affirm. The Invention As described by Appellants (Spec. p. 2, ll. 4-20), the invention is a touch input device for interacting with electronic systems in a vehicle that includes an airbag. The device includes an airbag cover having a surface accessible to and touchable by an occupant of the vehicle, and a capacitive touch sensor disposed between the airbag and the airbag cover. The touch sensor is configured such that a touch to a designated area of the surface allows capacitive coupling between the touch and the touch sensor through the airbag cover. The touch sensor is adapted for connecting to a controller capable of using signals generated by the capacitive coupling to interact with electronic systems of the vehicle. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A touch input device for interacting with electronic systems in a vehicle that includes an airbag, comprising: an airbag cover having an airbag surface accessible to and touchable by an occupant of the vehicle; and Appeal 2010-002910 Application 10/658,490 3 a capacitive touch sensor disposed between the airbag and the airbag cover, the touch sensor configured so that a touch applied on the airbag surface of the airbag cover forms a circuit through the airbag surface to the touch sensor that allows capacitive coupling between the touch and the touch sensor through the airbag surface of the airbag cover, the touch sensor adapted for connecting to a controller that uses signals generated by the capacitive coupling to interact with multiple electronic systems of the vehicle; wherein the capacitive touch sensor is configured to reduce interference with airbag deployment. App. Br. 15 (claims appendix). Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art references: Gillespie US 7,109,978 A1 Sept. 19, 2006 Pryor US 7,084,859 B1 Aug. 1, 2006 . Neuman US 5,942,815 Aug. 24, 1999 . Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, 28-38, and 42 were rejected as obvious over the combination of Gillespie, Pryor, and Neuman. Claims 23 and 27 were rejected as obvious over Gillespie in view of Pryor. The obviousness rejections of dependent claims 10-12, 24-26, and 39- 40 included in the final rejection (Final Rejection 12 and 15-18) were not argued in Appellants’ brief. See Ans. 3. Appeal 2010-002910 Application 10/658,490 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, 23, 27-38, and 42 on appeal were rejected either over the combination of Gillespie and Pryor (claims 23 and 27) or the combination of those references with Neuman (claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, 28-38, and 42). Ans. 4 and 12. Rejection of Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, 28-38, and 42 We note that Appellants do not present separate arguments for the claims in this grouping (App. Br. 7), permitting us to select claim 1 as representative. See 37 CFR § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). Gillespie teaches a touch input device (a capacitive touch sensor) for interacting with electronic systems (see col.1, ll. 28-33). The device has an insulating layer disposed over the sense pads on the top surface. Gillespie Fig. 2D, ref. num. 36; col. 11, ll. 36-41. Pryor teaches a capacitive touch sensor used for interacting with multiple electronic systems (col. 56, ll. 22-26). As is shown in the figure reproduced below, the sensor is disposed on the steering wheel of vehicle including an airbag (col. 7, ll.26-30). Appeal 2010-002910 Application 10/658,490 5 Figure 1c of Pryor above shows an example of a vehicle dash board 1 including touch screen 10 positioned in the steering wheel (col.13, ll.19-23). The Examiner finds that the combination of Gillespie and Pryor, while meeting the other elements of claim 1, does not expressly disclose the capacitive touch sensor being disposed between an airbag and an airbag cover as recited in the claim. Ans. 5. For that teaching the Examiner relies upon Neuman’s disclosure (col. 6, ll.28-31) of a capacitive sensor 102 for actuating a car horn placed between an airbag 704 and an airbag cover layer 702. Ans. 6. Appeal 2010-002910 Application 10/658,490 6 Figure 7 of Neuman above shows a cross-section of a vehicle steering wheel hub. Thus the Examiner found that the combination of Gillespie, Pryor, and Neuman meets all the limitations of claim 1. Ans. 5-6. In responding to the rejection Appellants present numerous arguments, each of which is more than adequately rebutted in the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 18-24. For example, Appellants contend that Pryor and Gillespie “teach away” from disposing a touch sensor between the airbag and airbag cover. App. Br. 8. The Examiner responds by pointing out, inter alia, that Pryor merely states that a touch sensor must not be where the airbag is found “unless the touch sensor has another design.” Ans. 19. In further response to this argument, the Examiner finds that Pryor does not teach that Gillespie’s touch sensor cannot be implemented where the airbag is found. Id. There is ample evidence to support this finding, especially in light of the positioning of the touch sensor on a steering wheel including an airbag in Pryor’s Fig.1c, discussed supra. Similarly, Appellants’ arguments that the combination of references including Neuman “changes the principle [sic] operation of the references,” Appeal 2010-002910 Application 10/658,490 7 (App. Br. 9), or that “critical differences” between the claims and the references have been ignored (id. at 10), are addressed and more than adequately rebutted by the Examiner. See Ans. 19-21. So, too, is the argument that the prior art lacks a teaching of touch sensors in relation to deployed air bags. App. Br. 12. The Examiner’s reliance on the teaching of Pryor that an airbag or touch screen must be configured to reduce interference with airbag deployment persuasively rebuts this argument. Ans. 23-24. Furthermore, we are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s articulated rationale for combining those references, or in any other aspects of the Examiner’s obviousness analysis for these claims. Ans. 21-23. Rejection of Claims 23 and 27 Appellants contend that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness as to these claims. App. Br. 13. In support of this contention, Appellants argue that Pryor does not teach placing a touch sensor on the back surface of an airbag cover. Id. The Examiner responds by pointing out that the rejection relies not on the combination of the touch screens of Pryor and Gillespie, but rather on including Gillespie’s touch screen in a steering wheel configuration as in Pryor’s teachings. See Ans. 12-14, 24. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as to any error in the Examiner’s obviousness analysis of these claims, or in the Examiner’s rebuttal to Appellants’ contentions. Appeal 2010-002910 Application 10/658,490 8 Furthermore, Appellants’ reply brief is a restatement of arguments previously addressed by the Examiner. See, e.g., the “Pryor teaches away” argument (Reply Br. 3, 5) addressed supra. As such, it does not persuade us of any error in the Examiner’s analysis or in the Examiner’s findings as to obviousness. Claims 10-12, 24-26, and 39-40 These claims depend (directly or indirectly) from claims 1 or 23, discussed supra. As they were not separately argued in Appellants’ brief (Ans.3), their rejection is affirmed for the reasons presented for claims 1 and 23. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, 23-40, and 42 is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED KMF