Ex Parte Waeller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2016

12377082 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/377,082 02/10/2009 Christoph W aeller
26646 7590 06/06/2016
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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.
111501140 2502
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2016 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):
uspto@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPH WAELLER, KATHARINA BACHFISCHER, and
JOERG LILIENTHAL
Appeal2014-005542
Application 12/377,082
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 26-40 and 42-50, which are all
the claims pending in the present patent application. Claims 1-25 and 41 are
cancelled. Claims App 'x. 1, 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify VOLKSWAGEN AG as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005542
Application 12/377,082
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to operating vehicle devices in which
different information is shown for different viewing angles on one display.
Spec. 1.
Claim 26 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized):
26. A method for operating a vehicle device,
compnsmg:
displaying, on a display of a display device,
different information for different viewing angles,
seating positions of users being assigned to the
viewing angles;
adjusting placement of control buttons on the
display for the viewing angle ergonomically to the
seating position assigned to the viewing angle;
detecting a position of an object in a
switching zone;
generating a s\~1itching signal assigned to the
switching zone in accordance with the detection of
the position of the object in the switching zone;
identifying the user of the object and the
seating position of the user assigned to the object,
wherein the identity of the user is independent of the
user's seating position;
generating a control signal for at least one of
(a) the vehicle device and (b) the display device as
a function of the switching signal, the user, and the
seating position of the user who triggered the
switching signal.
2
Appeal2014-005542
Application 12/377,082
The Rejection
Claims 26-40 and 42-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kawabe (US 2006/0028453 Al; Feb. 9, 2006) and Dietz (US 2006/0220788
Al; Oct. 5, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue all claims together. See App. Br. 3. Based on
Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of representative
claim 26. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 26 because
Kawabe "does not disclose, or even suggest" the claimed adjusting limitation.
App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Rather, according to Appellants, the cited portions
of Kawabe "merely describe the ability to freely design a display screen
without concern for crowding operation buttons for two different users onto
one screen at all times." App. Br. 4. Appellants further contend the Examiner
errs in construing the claimed adjusting "ergonomically" because the
Examiner's construction would include "any display of a menu, anywhere in
the vehicle that a driver or passenger can possibly access." Id. at 5. Finally,
Appellants contend, "In displaying its operating menu, Kawabe does not
consider the seating positions of its users." App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. Thus,
Appellants urge, Kawabe cannot adjust the viewing angle ergonomically to
the seating position assigned to the viewing angle. App. Br. 6.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. Appellants'
arguments do not persuade us of error. Rather, we agree with and adopt as
3
Appeal2014-005542
Application 12/377,082
our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We emphasize the following.
First, we disagree with Appellants that Kawabe "does not disclose, or
even suggest" the claimed adjusting limitation. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner correctly finds:
Ans. 10.
As fig. 6 and i-f 44 of Kawabe clearly disclose, "the
vehicle-mounted display control system 10 can
identify from which of the left and right sides a
person viewing the screen of the LCD 11 (i.e., the
passenger 30a or the driver 30b) operated an
operation button on the touch panel 12." Thus, "no
matter at which position an operation button is
arranged on the panel, the controlling unit 15 can
precisely identify from which of the left and right
sides the operation button was operated" and "an
appropriate image corresponding to the operation
entered from the corresponding direction can be
displayed on the LCD 11." Kawabe then states that
"this arrangement can determine an operation
menu displayed, on the screen, to,vard a
corresponding operator, to thereby allow the
function of a menu corresponding to the operation
instruction to be executed" (Kawabe, i-f 44,
emphasis added).
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the
Examiner's construction of "ergonomically" because the arguments are not
responsive to the Examiner's findings. App. Br. 5. Contrary to Appellants'
argument, the Examiner does not construe "ergonomically" to include "any
display of a menu, anywhere in the vehicle that a driver or passenger can
possibly access." Id. at 5. Rather, the Examiner finds, and we agree:
4
Appeal2014-005542
Application 12/377,082
In fact, fig. IA and if 8 of Kawabe explicitly shows
one such [ergonomic] design in which direction-
indicating buttons for scrolling a map are displayed
to an operator at the right side of the screen (e.g.,
D2, D3 and D4) and various menu buttons are
displayed to an operator on the left side of the screen
(Ml, M2 and M3).
Ans. 12. Indeed, the Examiner
Id. at 13.
considers any control button that can be actuated by
a driver or passenger on the LCD ofKawabe to be
placed "ergonomically". Thus, it is the placement
on the LCD of Kawabe that is ergonomic, not
"anywhere in the vehicle that a driver or passenger
can possibly access", as Appellant states.
Third, Appellants fail to persuade us that "[i]n displaying its operating
menu, Kawabe does not consider the seating positions of its users." App.
Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. As discussed above, Kawabe teaches an arrangement
that "can determine an operation menu displayed, on the screen, toward a
corresponding operator [i.e., to the seating position], to thereby allow the
function of a menu corresponding to the operation instruction to be
executed." Kawabe, if 44. We note Kawabe additionally teaches:
With the configuration of the LCD 11, light emitted
from the pixels Ai to A3 belonging to one group is
refracted at the peripheral surfaces of the lenses
41a, 43a, and 45a diagonally toward the left (i.e., in
the direction of the passenger seat). On the other
hand, light emitted from the pixels B 1 to B3
belonging to the other group is refracted at the
peripheral surfaces of the lenses 41b, 43b, and 45b
diagonally toward the right (i.e., in the direction of
the driver seat). As a result, using the single LCD
11, it is possible to simultaneously view two
5
Appeal2014-005542
Application 12/377,082
different screens (i.e., the dualview function). For
example, when DVD-image data is supplied from
the left-side display controlling unit 22a of the LCD
driver 20 and navigation-image data is supplied
from the right-side display controlling unit 22b, the
driver 30b in the driver seat 32b can view a
navigation screen displayed on the LCD 11 and
the passenger 30a in the passenger seat 32a can
also view a DVD screen displayed on the same
LCD 11.
Kawabe, i-f 33 (emphases added).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 26-40 and 42-50.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 26-40 and 42-
50.
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
6