Ex Parte KUEHNE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 1, 2018

15021245 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/021,245 03/10/2016
21171 7590 10/03/2018
ST AAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marcus KUEHNE
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.
2319.1182 6287
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2018 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):
ptomail@s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCUS KUEHNE and ULRICH MUELLER
Appeal2018-002864
Application 15/021,245
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 10-19. Claims 1-9 were cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Audi AG. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002864
Application 15/021,245
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a method and a system for operating
display devices of a motor vehicle. Spec. ,r 2. Exemplary claim 10 under
appeal reads as follows:
10. A method for operating display devices of a motor vehicle,
each of the display devices having a display region, said method
compnsmg:
detecting a gaze direction of a gaze of a driver of the motor
vehicle;
using the gaze direction to check whether the gaze of the
driver has been directed to the display region of one of the
display devices for at least a predefined gazing duration;
activating an interaction mode, when the gaze of the driver
has been directed to the display region of the one of the display
devices for at least the predefined gazing duration, an operating
device for controlling the one of the display devices being
activated in the interaction mode;
storing an extended gazing duration, longer than the
predefined gazing duration, the extended gazing duration being
predefined for an upper display device, the display region of the
upper display device being arranged completely above a lower
edge of a windshield of the motor vehicle; and
activating the interaction mode of the upper display device
only upon detection of the gaze of the driver directed to the
display region of the upper display device for at least the
extended gazing duration.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 10-11, 13-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ishii (US 2010/0238280 Al; published Sept. 23, 2010)
("Ishii") and Osman et al. (US 2012/0300061 Al; published Nov. 29, 2012)
("Osman"). See Final Act. 2-11.
2
Appeal2018-002864
Application 15/021,245
Claims 12, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ishii, Osman, and Kamhi et al. (US 2014/0344012 Al;
published Nov. 20, 2014) ("Kamhi"). See Final Act. 11-15.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement of
demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references in
order to show obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co., v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398,
419 (2007). Instead, a rejection based on obviousness only needs to be
supported by "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning"
to combine known elements in the manner required by the claim. Id. at 418.
Further, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)
( citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 10, 16, and 18
Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach
or suggest, "storing an extended gazing duration, longer than the predefined
gazing duration, the extended gazing duration being predefined for an upper
display device," as recited in independent claim 10, and similarly recited in
independent claims 16 and 18. See App. Br. 4--7; see also Reply Br. 1-3.
3
Appeal2018-002864
Application 15/021,245
More specifically, Appellants contend Osman fails to teach or suggest the
claimed ''upper display device" because Osman merely describes a single
display device (i.e., television) that presents a first video in a main section of
the display, and a second video in an insert within the display (i.e., picture-
in-picture video). See App. Br. 4--5 (citing Osman ,r 55); see also Reply
Br. 1-2. Appellants also contend neither Ishii nor Osman teaches or
suggests "storing an extended gazing duration, longer than the predefined
gazing duration," because both Ishii and Osman merely teach a single gazing
duration used to cause something to happen rather than two different gazing
durations (i.e., one gazing duration longer than the other). See App. Br. 6-7
(citing Ishii ,r 54; Osman ,r 55); see also Reply Br. 3.
Appellants' contention is not persuasive. Regarding Appellants'
argument that Osman fails to teach or suggest the claimed "upper display
device," this argument attacks the references individually and does not
address the combination of references. More specifically, the Examiner
relied upon Ishii for teaching or suggesting the claimed "upper display
device." See Final Act. 3 (citing Ishii ,r 49); see also Ans. 15-16.
Appellants' argument fails to address the combination of references
( specifically, fails to address Ishii), and, thus, is not persuasive of Examiner
error.
Regarding Appellants' argument that neither Ishii nor Osman teach or
suggest "storing an extended gazing duration, longer than the predefined
gazing duration," this argument is not persuasive either. Appellants are
incorrect in stating that to render the claim obvious, "what [is] required is a
single reference that describes storing two different gazing direction time
periods to control a device." App. Br. 6. As previously described, "the test
4
Appeal2018-002864
Application 15/021,245
for obviousness is not ... that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references[;] [ r ]ather, the test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Consistent with the
Examiner's findings, Ishii teaches detecting whether a driver's line of sight
has been maintained at a single location for a period of time (e.g., 160
milliseconds) (i.e., the claimed "predefined gazing duration") and Osman
teaches determining that a user is looking at video in a picture-to-picture
window for a period of time (e.g., two seconds) (i.e., the claimed "an
extended gazing duration, longer than the predefined gazing duration." See
Ans. 16-17 (citing Ishii ,r 55; Osman ,r,r 54--55). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Ishii and Osman teaches or suggests
"storing an extended gazing duration, longer than the predefined gazing
duration."
Appellants additionally contend no rationale was provided for why
one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Osman with Ishii in the
manner alleged by the Examiner. See App. Br. 5---6; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
More specifically, Appellants contend it would not have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine a gaze detection system configured to
switch between videos on a single television display as taught by Osman
with an apparatus for manipulating display devices within a motor vehicle as
taught by Ishii. See App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by this contention either. As a threshold matter,
Appellants are incorrect in alleging that Osman's gaze detection system is
limited to the environment of a single television display. Consistent with the
Examiner's findings, Osman also discloses a gaze detection system for a
5
Appeal2018-002864
Application 15/021,245
motor vehicle. See Osman ,r,r 34, 39; see also Ans. 17-18. Further, even
assuming arguendo that Osman's disclosure was limited to television
displays, Appellants are incorrect in concluding that it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Osman with Ishii
merely because Osman's disclosure of a control system for a television
display is not relevant to Ishii's disclosure of a control system for displays
within a motor vehicle. See App. Br. 5-6. As previously stated, "[t]he test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[;] [r]ather, the
test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
This argument is not persuasive of error because the Examiner has provided
a rationale for combining Osman with Ishii (i.e., to gain the benefit of
changing an operation mode without user input, as expressly taught by
Osman). See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 16.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited
references teaches or suggests all the elements of claims 1, 10, and 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 15
Appellants further contend the combination of cited references fails to
teach or suggest "changing respective gazing durations of the display
devices based on a driving speed of the motor vehicle," as recited in claim
15. See App. Br. 7-9; see also Reply Br. 4--5. More specifically, Appellants
contend Osman merely describes defining a threshold of danger to determine
when a collision is imminent based on, among other factors, a relative speed
6
Appeal2018-002864
Application 15/021,245
of two cars, and Osman fails to teach or suggest changing a separate gazing
threshold used by a gaze detection system to switch a display of a first video
and a second video within a picture-in-picture window of a display. See
App. Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
We are persuaded by this contention. Although we agree with the
Examiner that Osman teaches defining ( and thus, also changing) a
"threshold of danger" condition based on a driving speed of a motor vehicle
(see Final Act. 16 (citing Osman ,r 39), we are persuaded by Appellants'
argument that the Examiner has not shown that Osman ( either individually
or in combination with Ishii) teaches or suggests changing a gazing duration
used by a gaze detection system to switch a display of a first video and a
second video within a display based on the driving speed of a motor vehicle.
See App. Br. 8-9. Therefore, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. See App. Br. 7, 9. We therefore sustain their rejections for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 10, 16, and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-14 and 16-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Appeal2018-002864
Application 15/021,245
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-IN-PART
8