Ex Parte Hartl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

12985575 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/985,575 01/06/2011
28395 7590 08/29/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Derek Hartl
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83169774 4608
EXAMINER
KAN, YURI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEREK HAR TL, RY AN SKAFF, and
ANGELAL. WATSON
Appeal2014-008361
Application 12/985,575
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-13, 15, and 18 as unpatentable over
Sankaran (US 2007/0208468 Al, pub. Sept. 6, 2007) and Brady
(US 2009/0107391 Al, pub. April 30, 2009); claims 3, 9, 16, and 19 over
Sankaran, Brady, and Mizutani (US 2010/0194553 Al, pub. Aug. 5, 2010),
and claims 8, 14, 17, and 20 over Sankaran, Brady, and Weiss
(US 2002/0147050 Al, pub. Oct. 10, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-008361
Application 12/985,575
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to dashboard displays for automobiles.
Spec. i-fi-f l, 2, and 37. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
displaying power-consuming and power-producing vehicle
components;
determining, using a vehicle computing system, what
components are currently consuming power and delivering
power, and power-flow magnitude between components;
displaying an arrow showing a powerflow from a power-
producing component to a power consuming component;
displaying an indicia indicating a powerflow magnitude
associated with the arrow; and
displaying a gauge relating to a level of power being
consumed by the power-consuming component.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10--13, 15, and 18
over Sankaran and Brady
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-13, 15, and 18 as a group.
Appeal Br. 6-7. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner finds that Sankaran discloses all of the elements of
claim 1 except for a gauge relating to a level of power being consumed by a
power-consuming component. Final Action 3, 4. The Examiner finds that
Brady teaches a gauge relating to a level of power. Id. at 4 (citing Brady,
Abstract, Claim 5, Fig. 2, 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to modify Sankaran with a meter configured to display either the
fuel level value or the power level value as taught by Brady. Id. According
2
Appeal2014-008361
Application 12/985,575
to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
display the fuel level. Id. at 4, 5.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that Sankaran
is directed to fuel consumption of the vehicle as a whole, not individual
components. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants also argue that Brady can only show
a fuel level or a battery level, not power being consumed by a component.
Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed combination would be a
gauge showing vehicle fuel consumption. Id. Moreover, Appellants'
contend that Brady's gauge shows power remaining not power consumed.
Id. at 7.
In response to Appellants' argument that Sankaran only displays fuel
consumption of the vehicle as a whole, not of a component, the Examiner
states that Sankaran provides an iconic representation of a vehicle and
displays the direction and relative magnitude of power flow between the
various vehicle components. Ans. 3 (citing Sankaran, i-f 8, Figs. 2-7, and
Abstract). The Examiner finds that an electric motor, an engine, and a HV
battery of the Sankaran reference are components of a vehicle. Id. The
Examiner also considers the engine to be a power-consuming component,
because it consumes fuel. Id.
Sankaran is directed to a vehicle information display for a hybrid
vehicle. Sankaran, Abstract. Sankaran's display 56 includes an engine
icon 60, a motor icon 62, a battery icon 64 and a vehicle drive wheels
icon 66. Id., Figs. 2-8. To provide information to the vehicle operator
regarding the operating state of the vehicle, power flow indicators 68, 70,
and 72, between the various icons are used to indicate the direction and
magnitude of power flow between corresponding components of the vehicle.
3
Appeal2014-008361
Application 12/985,575
Id. The evidence of record supports the Examiner's findings of fact on the
issue of displaying at the component level.
In response to Appellants' argument that Brady merely shows power
remaining not power consumed, the Examiner finds that Brady shows a
gauge displaying about Y4 of a total value level of either the fuel value or the
power value. Ans. 4 (citing Brady, Figs. 2, 3). The Examiner explains, in
essence, that a gauge showing a condition of Y4 full is tantamount to also
showing a condition of% empty. Id. Thus, according to the Examiner,
Brady teaches both remaining and consumed levels of power. Id.
Appellants next argue that Brady's gauge displays fuel level or battery
level, not power being consumed by a "power-consuming component."
Appeal Br. 6. In response, the Examiner states that Sankaran is relied on for
displaying power consumption. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Brady to
teach the use of a gauge to display information relating to a level of power.
Id.
Brady is directed to battery charge and fuel meters for golf carts.
Brady i-f 2. During assembly, Brady's meter can be configured for
connection to either liquid fuel systems or battery powered systems. Id.
i-fi-1 17-20. The information displayed on Brady's gauge relates to the
amount of available fuel or power remaining for the vehicle (golf cart) as a
whole.
However, Brady "must be read not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner relies on
Sankaran as disclosing a display that conveys information for fuel/power
being consumed at the component level. Final Action 3, 4. Sankaran
4
Appeal2014-008361
Application 12/985,575
displays rate of change information. Sankaran, Abstract ("direction and
magnitude of power flow between ... components").
As shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle information display 56 also
includes additional power flow indicators. For example, a
second power flow indicator, or battery power flow indicator
70, is selectively displayed between the motor icon 62 and the
battery icon 64 to indicate the direction and relative magnitude
of power being transferred between the motor 40 and/ or the
generator 14 and the battery 46. A third power flow indicator,
or generator power flow indicator 72, is selectively displayed
between the engine icon 60 and the motor icon 62 to indicate
the direction and relative magnitude of power being transferred
between the engine 12 and the generator 14.
Sankaran ,-r 33. As we understand the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner is
merely relying on Brady to show that information that Sankaran otherwise
already displays, such as the relative magnitude of power being transferred
between the motor 40 and the generator 14, can be displayed using a meter
or gauge. Id.
Finally, Appellants argue that, since Sankaran already displays fuel
consumption with a graphical display, there would have been no motivation
for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sankaran with Brady.
Appeal Br. 6, 7. Essentially, Appellants argue that no one would see any
need to improve Sankaran, because it is already "good enough." This
argument is not persuasive as it is well settled that an implicit motivation to
combine exists when the improvement is technology-independent and the
combination of references results in a product or process that is more
desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter,
smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Dystar Textilfarben GmBH & Co.,
v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
5
Appeal2014-008361
Application 12/985,575
Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal-and even
common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even
absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.
Id. A reason to modify a prior art reference may be found explicitly or
implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the "interrelated teachings of
multiple patents" ; "any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at
the time of invention and addressed by the patent"; and the background
knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (quotingKSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21)). Here, the prospect that
Sankaran's display can be improved by providing information in both a
graphical and a gauge format is sufficient motivation to make the
combination.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded and we
sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-13,
15, and 18.
Unpatentability of Claims 3, 9, 16, and 19
over Sankaran, Brady, and Mizutani
Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of these
dependent claims apart from arguments presented with respect to the
independent claims, which we have previously considered and found
unpersuasive with respect to claim 1 as the representative claim. Appeal
Br. 7.
We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 9, 16, and 19.
6
Appeal2014-008361
Application 12/985,575
Unpatentability of Claims 8, 14, 17, and 20
over Sankaran, Brady, and Weiss
Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of these
dependent claims apart from arguments presented with respect to the
independent claims, which we have previously considered and found
unpersuasive with respect to claim 1 as the representative claim. Appeal
Br. 7.
We sustain the rejection of claims 8, 14, 17, and 20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7