Ex Parte Sturmat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

13925012 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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.
13/925,012 06/24/2013 Sandra STURMAT 1000/0144PUS1 9008
60601 7590 02/15/2017
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
TESHOME, KEBEDE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDRA STURMAT, ROMAN GABBERT,
CHRISTOF KRAWCZYK, and JANINE BRETZ
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,0121
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—10, which constitute all the claims pending
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Volkswagen AG.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,012
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ described and claimed invention relates generally to “[a]
motor vehicle display device.” Abstract.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation emphasized)'.
1. A motor vehicle display device comprising:
display elements configured to display information with
respect to vehicle operating states, the information being
displayed in an analog and/or digital manner, the display
elements being disposed on at least one first plane and at least
one second plane, or at least one first plane region and at least
one second plane region, that are superimposed in a viewing
direction of the motor vehicle display device, the at least one
second plane or the at least one second plane region being
disposed on an upstream side in the viewing direction,
wherein the at least one first plane or the at least one first
plane region includes at least one active display element,
wherein only passive display elements are disposed in the
at least one second plane or one second plane region or wherein
at least one passive display element is disposed in the at least one
second plane or one second plane region, and
wherein a distance between inner edges of the passive
display elements or the at least one passive display element is
larger than a distance between outer edges of the at least one
active display element.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x).
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Apr. 30, 2015
(“Final Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Sept. 30, 2015 (“App. Br.”)
and Reply Brief filed May 4, 2016 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Mar. 16, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed June 24,
2013 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,012
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 2004/0129197 Al; published July 8,
2004) (“Nakagawa”), in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 2003/0116079 Al;
published June 26, 2003) (“Sugiyama”).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakagawa, in view of Sugiyama, and further in view of
Kraus et al. (US 2005/0078485 Al; published Apr. 14, 2005).
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakagawa, in view of Sugiyama, further in view of Kraus,
and further in view of Kim (US 2007/0290959 Al; published Dec. 20, 2007)
(“Kim”).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakagawa, in view of Sugiyama, further in view of Kraus,
and further in view of Ritzenthaler et al. (US 4,939,934; issued July 10,
1990) (“Ritzenthaler”).
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakagawa, in view of Sugiyama, further in view of Kraus,
further in view of Kim, and further in view of Wang et al.
(US 2006/0256545 Al; published Nov. 16, 2006) (“Wang”).
3
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,012
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 3—10) and the Reply Brief (see
Reply Br. 1—6) and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2—13) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—9), and we concur with
the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Appellants argue Sugiyama teaches a conical indicating portion and a
dial plate provided in a same plane relative to a viewing direction, and thus,
Sugiyama fails to teach or suggest that the conical indicating portion (i.e.,
“the at least one second plane or the at least one second plane region”) is
disposed on an upstream side in a viewing direction. See App. Br. 6—8. We
do not find this argument persuasive because the Examiner relied upon
Nakagawa, rather than Sugiyama, for teaching the claimed feature of “the at
least one second plane or the at least one second plane region being disposed
on an upstream side in the viewing direction.” See Final Act. 3; see also
Ans. 6. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also argue Sugiyama’s conical indicating portion does not
have an opening through which a display element disposed on a downstream
side in a viewing direction as a narrow end of the conical indicating portion
is closed. See App. Br. 7. Therefore, as argued by Appellants, Sugiyama
fails to teach or suggest that a distance between inner edges of the claimed
4
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,012
“passive display element” is larger than a distance between outer edges of
the claimed “active display element.” See id. We also do not find this
argument persuasive. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Sugiyama
teaches a distance between inner edges of the claimed “passive display
element” (i.e., tick marks 2 and 6 of the conical indicating portion) is larger
than a distance between outer edges of the claimed “active display element”
(i.e., the display window), as shown in Fig. 10B of Sugiyama. See Ans. 5.
Fig. 10B, as annotated by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer, is
reproduced below:
This figure of Sugiyama depicts a meter equipped with an in-vehicle
status indicator, where the annotations depict a distance between inner edges
of the conical indicating portion (i.e., “D”) that is larger than a distance
between outer edges of the display window (i.e., “d”).
Appellants further argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to widen a length of Nakagawa’s display portion
5
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,012
because widening the display portion would cause the display portion to
block the plate, and thus, the cited references of Nakagawa and Sugiyama
teach away from the Examiner’s proffered combination. See App. Br. 6, 8.
We do not find this argument persuasive. It is well settled that “a
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet,
686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for
obviousness whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. Id. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a distance between inner edges of
a display element displayed within Nakagawa’s display portion so that the
distance is larger than a distance between outer edges of a display element
displayed within Nakagawa’s plate in light of the teachings of Sugiyama,
and such a modification would not require a widening of the display portion
that causes the display portion to block the plate. See Ans. 7—8.
Appellants also argue the cited references of Nakagawa and Sugiyama
do not teach or suggest a concept that allows a user to view an active display
element through a passive display element that is provided on an upstream
side of a viewing direction of the user such that a three-dimensional visual
effect is achieved. See App. Br. 8. We also do not find this argument
persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, as the claim does not recite the
feature of allowing a user to view an active display element through a
6
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,012
passive display element such that a three-dimensional visual effect is
achieved. See Ans. 8.
Appellants additionally argue the Examiner is inconsistent in the
interpretation of the claimed “passive display element” and “active display
element,” with respect to the elements disclosed by each reference. See
Reply Br. 1—5. More specifically, as argued by Appellants, the Examiner
finds that Nakagawa’s plate and small display portion teach the claimed
active and passive display elements, respectively, but further finds that
Sugiyama’s display window and conical indicating portion teach the claimed
active and passive display elements, respectively. See id. As argued by
Appellants, between the cited references of Nakagawa and Sugiyama,
Nakagawa’s plate corresponds to Sugiyama’s conical indicating portion,
whereas Nakagawa’s display portion corresponds to Sugiyama’s display
window, as shown below by the figure reproduced from Appellants’ Reply
Brief (see Reply Br. 1—2):
Active Disotey
Fig. 1 of Nakagawa Fig. S of Sugiyama
The reproduced figure of Appellants’ Reply Brief depicts Figure 1 of
Nakagawa and Figure 8 of Sugiyama including Appellants’ annotations
7
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,012
highlighting Nakagawa’s plate and display portion and Sugiyama’s conical
indicating portion and display window. Thus, as argued by Appellants, the
Examiner should have treated Sugiyama’s conical indicating portion as
teaching the claimed “active display element,” and Sugiyama’s display
window as teaching the claimed “passive display element.” See Reply
Br. 2-5.
We do not find this argument persuasive. We disagree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s finding regarding Nakagawa’s plate and
Sugiyama’s display window both teaching the claimed “active display
element” is inconsistent or otherwise improper. Appellants’ specification
indicates that an active display element “can be understood to be an element
which is variable within the motor vehicle display device and which changes
its position, size and/or shape.” See Spec. 112. We agree with the
Examiner that both Nakagawa and Sugiyama teach the claimed “active
display element,” as Nakagawa teaches that the plate includes an indicating
needle that rotates (i.e., changes position), and Sugiyama teaches the display
window displays information on the operation state of the vehicle. See
Nakagawa 128; see also Sugiyama 1139. We also disagree with Appellants
that the Examiner’s finding regarding Nakagawa’s display portion and
Sugiyama’s conical indicating portion both teaching the claimed “passive
display element” is inconsistent or otherwise improper. Appellants’
specification indicates that a passive display element “can be understood to
be an element whose position, size and shape does not change within the
motor vehicle display unit.” Spec. 113. We agree with the Examiner that
both Nakagawa and Sugiyama teach the claimed “passive display element,”
as Nakagawa teaches the display portion includes a direction indication
8
Appeal 2016-005520
Application 13/925,012
display, and Sugiyama teaches the conical indicating portion includes
characters and symbols. See Nakagawa 144; see also Sugiyama 1133.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Nakagawa and Sugiyama teaches or suggests all of the claim
elements of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as dependent claims 2—10, not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9