VOLKSWAGEN AG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2019003294 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
13/836,191 03/15/2013 Matthew JOLDA 1000/0129PUS1 5022
60601 7590 10/02/2020
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
OLSHANNIKOV, ALEX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
MAILROOM@MG-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW JOLDA, NILS KOETTER,
and WILLIAM LATHROP
____________

Appeal 2019-003294
Application 13/836,191
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-003294
Application 13/836,191

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 13–17, and 21–23, which are all pending
claims. Appeal Br. 13–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to a “touch bar [] configured to
receive user touch input, and a proximity sensor disposed on the console
surface, the proximity sensor configured to detect a user gesture” in which
an “interactive touch surface is configured to receive sliding user input
across the interactive touch surface to navigate through content options and
is configured to receive pressing user input for selecting the content
options.” Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced
below:
1. A touch bar, comprising:
an interactive touch surface, the interactive touch
surface comprising a capacitive surface having a plurality
of interactive zones, each interactive zone including a
content option, configured to detect user touch input for
controlling a separate vehicle-mounted display screen,
each interactive zone corresponding to an interactive icon
on the separate vehicle-mounted display screen,
wherein the interactive touch surface is configured
to receive sliding user input across the interactive touch
surface to navigate through the content options and is

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Volkswagen AG and Audi AG as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003294
Application 13/836,191

3
configured to receiving pressing user input for selecting
the content options, and
wherein upon receiving the sliding user input the
content options in the interactive zones change to provide
additional interactive icons not initially presented on the
separate vehicle-mounted display screen and not initially
associated with the interactive touch surface.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).

B. The Rejections on Appeal2
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Colgate (US 2007/0236450 A1; Oct. 11, 2007) and Missig
(US 2011/0302532 A1; Dec. 8, 2011). Final Act. 7.
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 14–17, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Colgate, Missig, Sizelove (US 2012/0132746
A1; May 31, 2012) (hereinafter “Sizelove ’12”), and Sizelove (US
2009/0079705 A1; Mar. 26, 2009) (hereinafter “Sizelove ’09”). Final
Act. 9.
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Colgate, Missig, Sizelove ’12, and Buttolo (US
2013/0270896 A1; Oct. 17, 2013). Final Act. 14.
The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Colgate, Missig, and Zadesky (US 2007/0052691 A1;
Mar. 8, 2007). Final Act. 15.

2 The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 13–17, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
has been withdrawn in the Answer. See Final Act. 6, Ans. 3–4.
Appeal 2019-003294
Application 13/836,191

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
A. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1
Appellant first argues that Missig “does not teach or suggest that
movement of the selection indicator by touch gestures on the touch pad 450
provide additional interactive icons not initially presented on the separate
vehicle-mounted display screen.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis in original).
We do not find this argument persuasive. Regarding the claimed
“upon receiving the sliding user input the content options in the interactive
zones change to provide additional interactive icons not initially presented
on the separate vehicle-mounted display screen,” the Examiner finds that
it is clear from the from the Figures 5Q-5T of Missig that when
a user moves their finger 5050 down on the touch-sensitive
surface 452, the content on the display 450 begins to scroll up.
As a result, new content is displayed, including “Advertisement
3” and even the top of another content item which is below
“Advertisement 3”.

Ans. 5. The Examiner’s finding is confirmed by the text supporting the
Figures, stating that
[f]or example, in FIGS. 5Q-5T, in response to receiving an input
that corresponds to a first gesture (e.g., contact 5044 and
subsequent movement of the contact across the touch-sensitive
surface 452 in FIG. 5Q) the object selection indicator 5010 is
moved to the updated location (e.g., a location proximate to the
“government” hyperlink 5006-5 in FIG. 5R), and the user
Appeal 2019-003294
Application 13/836,191

5
interface scrolled upwards on the display (e.g., as illustrated in
FIGS. 5S-5T) so as to display the object selection indicator 5010
proximate to the center of the predefined region 5038, as
illustrated in FIG. 5T.

Missig ¶ 275 (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
that
the touch-sensitive surface 452 can be divided into interactive
zones which correspond to different content options which are
presented on display 450. Once a user performs a sliding user
input on the touch-sensitive surface 452, the content presented
on display 450 scrolls and displays new content.

Ans. 6. Missig teaches a sliding user input on the touch-sensitive surface
that performs a scrolling action and displays new content including a
hyperlink (corresponding to an icon) that is selectable via a “tap gesture” on
the “touch-sensitive surface 452.” See Missig ¶¶ 275, 281.
Appellant next argues “Missig does not teach or suggest that the
content options in the interactive zones change, which are on the
touchbar, to provide additional interactive icons not initially presented on
the interactive touch surface.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis in original).
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim,
which states that “additional icons” are not “initially associated with the
interactive touch surface.”3

3 Appellant appears to additionally argue in the Reply that the touch bar is
also configured to display icons or “content options.” See Reply Br. 3–4,
quoting Spec. ¶ 33. Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether the disclosure contains sufficient enablement or
written description support.
Appeal 2019-003294
Application 13/836,191

6
Additionally, Appellant attacks Missig individually. “[O]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). For example, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
that “Colgate teaches a VFHD that controls the main display. The VFHD is
matched one to one to a position in a section of the visual display. Thus, the
VFHD contains various zones mapped to the icons on the visual display.”
Final Act. 7, citing Colgate Figs. 1 and 20, ¶¶ 53, 11. Appellant does not
address this finding.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as independent claims 5 and 15 commensurate in scope, and
all dependent claims not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 9–11.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4 103(a) Colgate, Missig 1, 4
5, 14–17,
21, 23
103(a) Colgate, Missig,
Sizelove ’12,
Sizelove ’09
5, 14–17,
21, 23

13 103(a) Colgate, Missig,
Sizelove ’12,
Buttolo
13
22 103(a) Colgate, Missig,
Zadesky
22
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 5,
13–17,
21–23

Appeal 2019-003294
Application 13/836,191

7

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