Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2020

14274909 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2020)

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.
14/274,909 05/12/2014 Jeffrey M. Roder 081276-9659-US01 2569
34044 7590 01/13/2020
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
LUI, DONNA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2020 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY M. RODER, MARIUS NOLLER,
PHILIP VENTIMIGLIA, SVEA HILLENBRAND, and
CORNELIUS DOSCH

Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4−10, 16, and 17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dynamic vehicle display for
communicating multiple vehicle parameters. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A graphical display unit for a vehicle, the graphical display unit
including a screen and a controller configured to:
receive a signal indicative of vehicle acceleration;
determine a display angle for an axis of an elliptic icon
based on a lateral acceleration of the vehicle;
display the elliptic icon on the screen oriented on the axis at
the determined display angle; and
adjust a shape of the elliptic icon displayed on the screen
based on the signal indicative of the vehicle acceleration,
wherein the controller is configured to cause the
shape of the elliptic icon displayed on the screen to
appear substantially circular in response to a
determination, based on the signal indicative of the
vehicle acceleration, that the vehicle acceleration is
approximately zero in a forward direction,
wherein the controller is configured to cause the
shape of the elliptic icon displayed on the screen to
appear stretched in response to a determination, based on
the signal indicative of the vehicle acceleration, that the
vehicle acceleration is greater than zero in the forward
direction, wherein the controller is configured to cause
the shape of the elliptic icon to appear stretched by
displaying a non-circular icon that is stretched along the
axis at the determined display angle, and
wherein the controller is configured to cause the
shape of the elliptic icon displayed on the screen to
appear compressed in response to a determination, based
on the signal indicative of the vehicle acceleration, that
the vehicle acceleration is less than zero in the forward
Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
3
direction, wherein the controller is configured to cause
the shape of the elliptic icon to appear compressed by
displaying a non-circular icon that is compressed along
the axis at the determined display angle.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Paulo
Briggs
US 6,675,650 B1
US 9,177,427 B1
Jan. 13, 2004
Nov. 3, 2015
Sandberg
Okubo
Sasaki
Willard
US 2004/0145461 A1
US 2008/0218529 A1
US 2013/0027426 A1
US 2013/0096895 A1
Jul. 29, 2004
Sep. 11, 2008
Jan. 31, 2013
Apr. 18, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 first paragraph as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Briggs, Okubo, and Sasaki. Id. at 6−11.
Claims 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Briggs, Okubo, Sasaki, and Paulo. Id. at 12−13.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Briggs, Okubo, Sasaki, and Willard. Id. at 13−14.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Briggs, Okubo, Sasaki, Willard, and Sandberg. Id. at
14−17.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Briggs, Sasaki, and Paulo. Id. at 17−23.

Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Our opinion focuses on the examiner’s reliance on Sasaki as applied to
claims 1 and 16. Appellant argues claims 1 and 16 together in relation to the
Examiner’s reliance on Sasaki. Appeal Br. 14−17. Therefore, we analyze
the obviousness rejection, or the Sasaki reliance in particular, of the pending
claims based on claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the reasons
that follow, we determine that the Examiner erred.
Obviousness Rejection
Claim 1 requires that the recited elliptical icon appear in three
different shapes in response to determining the vehicle acceleration in the
forward direction: (1) “substantially circular” appearance when the
acceleration is approximately zero; (2) “stretched” appearance when the
acceleration is greater than zero; and (3) “compressed” appearance when the
acceleration is less than zero. Appeal Br. 25−26 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner relies on Sasaki as teaching the “stretched” and
“compressed” shapes. Final Act. 8−9. For instance, the Examiner finds that
Sasaki “cause[s] the shape of the elliptic icon to appear stretched by
displaying a non-circular icon that is stretched along an axis at the
determined display angle . . . and cause[s] the shape of the elliptic icon to
appear compressed by displaying a non-circular icon that is compressed
along an axis at the determined display angle . . . .” Id. at 8 (citing Sasaki
¶¶ 125−127, Figs. 5I and 5K (for the stretched appearance), Figs. 5H, 5J, 5L
(for the compressed appearance)).
Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
5
Appellant correctly notes, however, that Sasaki’s elliptical shape
(either compressed or stretched) does not convey the change in acceleration
of the vehicle, or any vehicle information for that matter. Appeal Br. 14−15.
Sasaki discloses that the shape of the circle transitions to an ellipse and back
to a circle, in a sequential manner, as a form of an alert to the user that the
vehicle is in an unfavorable state. Sasaki ¶ 87. That is, Sasaki’s alternating
shape changes shown in Figures 5G though 5L alert the user, in an easily
recognizable manner that some condition of the vehicle has gotten worse,
such as a worse fuel efficiency. Id. ¶¶ 34, 66. We agree.
The circle-to-ellipse transitions of Sasaki for the unfavorable state are
depicted in Figures 5G−5L, reproduced below.

Figures 5G to 5L are schematic views illustrating the temporal change
of second display object 180b in the second state (ST2). Sasaki ¶¶ 11, 130.
Specifically, during the second state (e.g., the unfavorable state), display
Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
6
image 330 shows, in Figure 5G, object 180b in the shape of a circle at time
t1. Id. at Fig. 5G. That same object 180b changes shape to a horizontal
ellipse at time t2, as shown in Figure 5H, and to a vertical ellipse at time t3,
as shown in Figure 5I. Id. at Figs. 5H, 5I. The transitions between the
vertical and horizontal ellipse continue for time intervals t3 to t4, t4 to t5,
and t5 to t6. Id. at Figs. 5J, 5K, 5L. As stated above, these transitions are
meant to notify the user that a vehicle characteristic, such as fuel efficiency,
is in an unfavorable state. Id. ¶¶ 34, 66. The vertical ellipse conveys no
information different from the horizontal ellipse. Nor does the circle convey
different information from either the vertical or horizontal ellipses. Thus,
the Examiner does not point to any teaching or suggestion showing that the
“compressed” appearance or “stretched” appearance of the ellipses in Sasaki
each would convey or represent a particular condition in the vehicle.
The Examiner’s rejection focuses on Sasaki teaching the shapes as
providing “easy recognition of the state of the moving vehicle.” Final Act.
9. Although it is true that Sasaki’s shape transitions provide easy
recognition of the state of the moving vehicle, the transitions from 5G to 5L
all denote the same state of the vehicle. By way of example, if a particular
acceleration magnitude was deemed an “unfavorable state,” Sasaki would be
in the second state (ST2) and display all 6 transitions in sequence. In
contrast, the claims require that a circular elliptic icon represent zero
acceleration, the compressed elliptic icon represent acceleration less than
zero, and the stretched elliptic icon represent acceleration that is greater than
zero. Thus, the Sasaki teaching of “easy recognition” does not amount to a
teaching that the vertical and horizontal ellipses of Figures 5G through 5L
would mean two different states of the vehicles such that each of those
Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
7
shapes would represent acceleration greater than zero or less than zero,
respectively.
The Examiner further states that “there are a finite amount of
acceleration directions corresponding to the change in icon shape yielding
predictable results.” Id. To the extent this statement ascribes to Sasaki the
teaching of a correspondence between the shape of the icon and an amount
of acceleration, the statement is incorrect because, as explained above, we
find that Sasaki teaches no such correspondence.
The Examiner’s Answer explains further that Sasaki teaches a
correspondence between the characteristic value of the vehicle and the
displayed objects. Ans. 5. The explanation, however, reflects the erroneous
conclusion that each of the images in Figures 5A to 5L conveys, to a person
of ordinary skill in the art, a particular value or operational characteristic of
the vehicle. Rather, as explained above, the sets of images (not individual
images) inform the user whether the vehicle is in either a favorable state
(ST1) or an unfavorable state (ST2).
The Examiner’s Answer further explains that Briggs teaches that a
bubble grows larger as the vehicle accelerates, and that such an expansion
teaches a circle that is “stretched in every direction circularly.” Id. (citing
Briggs, 6:23−33, Fig. 5). Because the claims “do not specify along which
axes the icon is stretched or compressed[,] or how the elliptic icon is
stretched or compressed,” according to the Examiner, it is “proper to
interpret an icon being stretched or compressed along an axis, and
additionally in every direction circularly.” Id. Therefore, the Examiner
concludes, that Briggs also teaches the limitation. We do not agree.
The claim language in the context of the Specification does not refer
to compressing and stretching the elliptic icon in the sense of enlarging or
Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
8
shrinking a circle. The size of the circle is not claimed to be indicative of
the acceleration, read in light of the Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 5
(relating the diameter of the circular icon to the engine speed). Rather, it is
the unique shape that represents the particular magnitude of forward
acceleration. Therefore, the Examiner’s interpretation of stretching or
compressing a circle “in every direction” as meeting the recited “stretched”
or “compressed” elliptic icon limitations is in error.
Consequently, we determine that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 16 based on a reliance on Sasaki for the limitations addressed
above.
Written Description Rejection
Claim 1 recites that the controller is configured to “determine a
display angle for an axis of an elliptic icon based on a lateral acceleration of
the vehicle.” Claim 4 also recites “determining a display angle.”
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 4 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement because “[t]he specification makes no
reference to determining any angle let along a display angle for the axis of
the elliptic icon.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4 (“the specification does not
describe nor further indicate how the primary axis is positioned on the
display at a defined angle . . . .”). Appellant argues that Figure 4D of the
Specification, as well as originally filed claims 2 and 3, support the
determining a display angle limitation. Appeal Br. 10−11. We agree with
Appellant.
The Specification describes Figure 4D in the following manner: To
indicate lateral g-forces acting on the vehicle (e.g., as the vehicle turns), the
performance ball is rotated on the display as illustrated in Fig. 4D. Spec.
¶ 25. Figure 4D shows the performance ball rotated clockwise, in
Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
9
comparison to the non-rotated performance ball shown in Figure 4B. These
Figures and the corresponding description inform a person of ordinary skill
in the art that the applicant had in possession the idea of determining an
angle that corresponds to the lateral forces acting on the turning vehicle in
order to rotate the displayed elliptic icon in accord with such a
determination. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 4 for lack of written description support.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2019-001484
Application 14/274,909
10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim[s]
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4 112 Written
description
1, 4
1, 4, 5 103(a) Briggs,
Okubo, and
Sasaki
1, 4, 5
6, 10 103(a) Briggs,
Okubo,
Sasaki, Paulo
6, 10
7 103(a) Briggs,
Okubo,
Sasaki,
Willard
7
8, 9 103(a) Briggs,
Okubo,
Sasaki,
Willard,
Sandberg
8, 9
16, 17 103(b) Briggs,
Sasaki, Paulo
16, 17
Overall
Outcome
1, 4−10, 16,
17

REVERSED