Ex Parte Yamamoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2013

10598098 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TAKESHI YAMAMOTO, AKI MIAKE,
TOSHIYA TAKAHASHI, MEGUMI ITOH,
MITSUKAZU OKUDA, TAKESHI DOI,
and TAKEO ABE
____________________

Appeal 2010-011856
Application 10/598,098
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011856
Application 10/598,098

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 34-46. Claims 1-33 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to an onboard display device and system.
Claim 34, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
34. An onboard display device, comprising:
a display section attached to an instrument panel of a
vehicle, said display section being greater in width than in
height and having an aspect ratio that is equal to or greater than
7 : 3, the aspect ratio being a width/height ratio of a display area
of the display section, said display section including a first part
in which a secondary image including information other than
information of the vehicle is displayed, and a second part in
which vehicle condition image including information of the
vehicle are displayed; and
a display control section controlling individual manners
in which the display section shows the secondary image and the
vehicle condition images,
under control of said display control section, when the
secondary image is displayed at an increased scale, the
secondary image appears partly on a part of a display area for
the vehicle condition images, and the vehicle condition images
are displayed in a different manner.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
McCarthy
Breed
US 6,477,464 B2
US 7,126,583 B1
Nov. 5, 2002
Oct. 24, 2006
Nakamura JP 064195056 A July 15, 1994
Appeal 2010-011856
Application 10/598,098

3
REJECTIONS
1

The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 34- 36 and 40-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakamura and McCarthy. Ans. 3.
Claims 37- 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamura, McCarthy, and Breed. Ans. 8.

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-13)
and Reply Brief (Reply 4-10) the issue presented on appeal is whether
Nakamura teaches or suggests a display device that “under control of said
display control section, when the secondary image is displayed at an
increased scale, the secondary image appears partly on a part of a display
area for the vehicle condition images, and the vehicle condition images are
displayed in a different manner,” as recited by claim 34.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions as to all rejections. We
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the

1
Based on Appellants’ arguments and grouping of the claims (App. Br. 9,
13), we will decide the appeal of claims 34-46 based on claim 34, claims 35-
46 not having been separately argued.

Appeal 2010-011856
Application 10/598,098

4
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For
emphasis, we consider and highlight the following arguments seriatim as
they are presented in the Appeal Brief pages 9-13.
Appellants contend that, while Nakamura “teaches that different
display portions of the display can be resized or replaced with other display
portions that show other information” (App. Br. 11), it fails to disclose
images displayed in a different manner (id.). In particular, “when the images
on the display of Nakamura . . . are changed from the arrangement of Fig. 4d
to the arrangement of Fig. 5b . . . the images are not displayed in a different
manner.” App. Br. 11. Instead, according to Appellants, when one display
portion is increased, the GPS information is replaced with azimuth
information in the remaining, now smaller, display portion such that “the
GPS information A2 shown in Fig. 4d of Nakamura et al. is not ‘displayed in
a different manner,’ but is instead replaced with entirely different
information.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Nakamura teaches changing the manner
in which information is displayed, citing Nakamura ¶ [0027.] Ans. 11.
Therein Nakamura describes user specification of the number of split areas,
positions or areas, images to display in those areas, etc. Nakamura ¶ [0027.]
We agree with the Examiner.
Claim 34 recites that, under certain conditions, “vehicle condition
images are displayed in a different manner.” The Examiner finds that
“‘[m]anner’ is defined as a way of doing, being done, or happening; or as a
mode of action, occurrence.” Ans. 12. The Examiner concludes that
“Nakamura's resizing a graphic, reads on a different manner.” Id. In contrast,
Appeal 2010-011856
Application 10/598,098

5
Appellants do not identify any description in the original disclosure that
provides additional guidance in construing “displayed in a different manner”
other than an example of displaying vehicle speed using a bar meter of
numerical representation instead of by a round meter. App. Br. 12. Neither
do Appellants identify any description in the original disclosure that
precludes the Examiner’s construction. Accordingly, and in view of the
record presented, Appellants have not persuasively argued that the
Examiner’s construction is unreasonable in view of, or inconsistent with,
Appellants’ Specification. Therefore, we find the Examiner’s position to be
reasonable.
Appellants further argue that Nakamura replaces GPS information
with azimuth information rather than displaying the GPS information “in a
different manner.” App. Br. 11. However, as found by the Examiner,
Nakamura discloses that the user can specify the number of split areas,
positions or areas, and images to display in those areas (Nakamura [0027],
see also Figs. 4d, 5b). See Ans. 11. Therefore we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that Nakamura teaches or suggests displaying information as
different size images and, therefore, in different manners as recited by claim
34.
Appellants also argue that “nowhere in Nakamura et al. is there any
teaching or suggestion of converting the display format of a specific type of
information in the manner as recited in Applicant’s claim 34.” App. Br. 11-
12. However, claim 34 does not require conversion of the display format of a
Appeal 2010-011856
Application 10/598,098

6
specific type of information, only display “in a different manner.”
2

Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim
34. Notwithstanding, such deficiencies of Appellants’ argument, we find that
Nakamura’s disclosure of providing for user specification of split areas,
positions or areas, and images to display in those areas, as described supra,
teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation including the display of
vehicle condition images (i.e., images representing a specific type of
information) in a different manner. Therefore Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive of Examiner error.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 34- 36 and 40-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakamura
and McCarthy or in rejecting claims 37- 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Nakamura, McCarthy, and Breed and we therefore sustain those rejections.

2
Additionally, we observe that because the actual information being
displayed is nonfunctional descriptive material, claim 34 is not limited to
displaying one specific type of information in a different manner, only to
displaying images in a different manner which is not distinguishable from
the display of the prior art. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-88
(BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Appeal 2010-011856
Application 10/598,098

7
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 34-36 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD