Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

13872636 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/872,636 04/29/2013
28395 7590 12/26/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Schneider
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.
83353889 5474
EXAMINER
MCCULLOUGH, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK SCHNEIDER,
JASON JOHNSON, JENNIFER L. BRACE,
IVETTE HERNANDEZ, ALEXANDER STRUTHERS,
KARL VANDIVIER, AMY GARBY,
PAUL ALDIGHIERI, and GARY BRADDOCK1
Appeal2017-010676
Application 13/872,636
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIELS. SONG, JAMES P. CALVE, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 19-21 over Aoki (US 2009/0164062 Al, pub. June
25, 2009), Yahiro (US 2006/0212829 Al, pub. Sept. 21, 2006), and Gelfond
(US 2005/0018172 Al, pub. Jan. 27, 2005). Claims 1-18 are cancelled.
Appeal Br. 6, 9 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest
(Appeal Br. 1) and also is the Applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2017-010676
Application 13/872,636
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 19, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
19. A computer-implemented method comprising:
associating each of a plurality of vehicle function
categories with a different color;
presenting, on a display, a vehicle function identifier
color associated with a controllable vehicle function;
and
emitting colored light, corresponding to the presented
vehicle function identifier color, from one or more vehicle
controls other than the display, usable to control the
controllable vehicle function.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that we limit our review to arguments presented by
Appellant, and arguments that the Appellant could have made but chose not
to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (the
Appeal Brief must contain the arguments of appellant explaining why the
examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant and
arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will not be
considered); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(approving of Board's long-standing practice of requiring an applicant to
identify the alleged error in an examiner's rejections); Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("The panel then reviews
the obviousness rejection for error based upon the issues identified by
appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.")
( cited with approval in Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365).
2
Appeal2017-010676
Application 13/872,636
Claims 19 and 20
The Examiner relies on Aoki to teach a vehicle display (part 40) used
to control vehicle functions 100 as recited in claim 19. Final Act. 8 ( citing
Aoki, Fig. 6). The Examiner relies on Yahiro to teach a display used to
associate vehicle functions with different colors that users select by touching
different colors of correlation diagram 40 screen. Id. ( citing Yahiro, Fig. 4).
The Examiner relies on Gelfond to teach a vehicle control with different
colors that indicate a particular vehicle function that is being controlled. Id.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Aoki
to associate different vehicle categories with different colors on a screen as
taught by Yahiro, and to associate different functions with different colors
on one or more vehicle controls as taught by Gelfond, so an operator can
control the vehicle's functions with a reduced level of attention. Id. at 8-9.
Appellant argues that Gelfond's first knob controls the same function
and only changes color based on a variance in source rather than function as
claimed. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that the knob changes color but
not function. Reply Br. 2-3 ("the knob controls one function" and "[t]he
color emitted from the knob is unrelated to that function."). Appellant also
argues that the knob color corresponds to selected content such as a song,
artist, or genre, not to a function that is controlled by the knob. Id. at 3.
We agree with the Examiner that Gelfond's knob 20-1 changes colors
to indicate different functions that it performs, e.g., AM radio, FM radio,
Satellite radio, CD, DVD. Ans. 3--4. The Examiner correctly finds that each
type of media is a different function associated with a different color. AM
can be red, FM can be blue, CD can be green. Selecting a different media
function changes the color emitted by knob 20-1. Id. at 4; Gelfond ,r 209.
3
Appeal2017-010676
Application 13/872,636
The Specification discloses that "core" operations such as navigation,
phone, entertainment, and climate may be associated with different colors on
a display and a control knob. Spec. ,r,r 49-57. Sub-operations of a core
operation also can be associated with different colors. Id. ,r 52. Thus, core
entertainment operation includes sub-operations such as AM or FM radio,
satellite radio, and CD player, and each type of entertainment may be
identified by a different color for that particular function in accordance with
Appellant's Specification. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Gelfond emits different colored light
from control knob 20-1 to control a different vehicle function/operation such
as AM radio, FM radio, CD player, or DVD player. Each time knob 20-1 is
pressed to select a different type of entertainment (AM radio, FM radio,
Satellite Radio, CD, DVD), the color of knob 20-1 changes to indicate the
particular entertainment function that is selected. Gelfond ,r,r 208, 209, 231.
Second media knob 20-2 changes color to indicate operations controlled as
well. Id. ,r 211. Neither the claims nor the Specification excludes different
media functions from the claimed vehicle functions. Ans. 6. In fact, as
noted above, the Specification treats different types of media as different
vehicle sub-operations/functions. See Spec. ,r 52.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 and dependent claim 20,
which is not argued separately.
Claim 21
For the same reasons, we also agree with the Examiner that Gelfond
teaches emitting a different color from the same control (i.e., knob 20-1) to
control a plurality of different vehicle functions where the color is based on
the function that is controlled currently as recited in claim 21. Ans. 5-8.
4
Appeal2017-010676
Application 13/872,636
Appellant's argument that Gelfond relates only to media functions is
not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. The Examiner relies on
Aoki to teach the display of plural vehicle function categories and one or
more vehicle controls, and further relies on Y ahiro to teach a device that
associates each of a plurality of vehicle function categories with a different
color. Ans. 3; Final Act. 8. The Examiner relies on Gelfond to teach
controls that emit different colors of light corresponding to a different
vehicle function that is controlled by that device. Ans. 3-6; Final Act. 8;
Gelfond ,r,r 209-211. In effect, Appellant is arguing Gelfond's teachings
individually instead of in the manner relied on by the Examiner in the
rejection. Moreover, claim 21 does not preclude the use of different colors
to control a plurality of different functions of the same category such as
entertainment as discussed above. See Spec. ,r 52. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 21. 2
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 19-21.
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
2 Appellant's argument that the Office Action (mailed Dec. 14, 2016) (from
which this appeal is taken) contains a new ground of rejection and cannot be
designated as a final action (Appeal Br. 4---6) is a petitionable matter under
3 7 C.F .R. § 1.181 and, therefore, is not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40; MPEP §§ 1002.02(c), 1207.03(b).
5