WIKA Alexander Wiegand SE & Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 7, 2021

2020003865 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2021)

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.
15/581,038 04/28/2017 Ulrich DEMUTH 1220/0125PUS1 2848
60601 7590 09/07/2021
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
MCINTOSH, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2021 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 ULRICH DEMUTH, THOMAS ROTHENBACH,
and PAUL HANESCH

Appeal 2020-003865
Application 15/581,038
Technology Center 2100

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–22. Appeal Br. 4. The
Examiner objects to claim 3 as depending from a rejected base claim. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Final Act. 32.
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Apr. 28, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed June 26, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 19,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 17, 2020 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed Apr. 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “[A]pplicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as WIKA ALEXANDER
WIEGAND SE & CO. KG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003865
Application 15/581,038
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a virtual functional interface for
detecting and adjusting the operating state of a device (e.g., adjustable
pressure gauge). Spec. ¶¶ 1, 11. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 above depicts a system including mobile terminal 3 for
detecting, analyzing, and adjusting the operating state of measuring device 2.
Id. ¶¶ 61, 62. Upon using optical detection unit 3.1 to scan marking pattern
M (e.g., a barcode, QR code within frame R) displayed on measuring
Appeal 2020-003865
Application 15/581,038
3
device 2, operating unit 3.3 generates and displays representative image B of
measuring device 2 on display 3.2, and subsequently searches a locally
stored database to find corresponding virtual graphics component vG
showing the operating state of measuring device 2. Id. ¶¶ 63–67, 71, 72.
Operating unit 3.3 subsequently adapts virtual graphics component vG with
updated operation state data to thereby display complete image GB
including buttons SF1, SF2 configured as an interactive virtual user interface
for accessing the operating states of measuring device 2. Id. ¶ 74.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized, is illustrative:
1. A system for detection, analysis and manipulation of a
device, the system comprising:
a mobile terminal having an optical detection unit, a
display, and an operating unit;
a marking pattern arranged on the device, wherein via the
optical detection unit, the marking pattern on the device is
detected and a representative image of the device is generated
on the display;
a cache or memory for storing device data received from
the device;
a graphics memory for storing device-specific, virtual
graphics components;
a processor that adapts a virtual graphics component
based on device data received and combines or overlays the
virtual graphics component with the representative image of the
device to form a complete image;
wherein the virtual graphics component displays an
operating state of the device,
wherein the display outputs the complete image that is
updated in predetermined intervals, and
wherein the marking pattern arranged on the device
includes edges or a frame that enclose an area on the device,
Appeal 2020-003865
Application 15/581,038
4
such that in the complete image, the virtual graphics
component that is combined or overlayed with the
representative image of the device is confined to the area
enclosed by the edges or the frame.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Ullrich US 2011/0105103 A1 May 5, 2011
Brackney US 2011/0115816 A1 May 19, 2011
Phillips US 2014/0118239 A1 May 1, 2014
Klein US 2014/0281758 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Wong US 2015/0102984 A1 Apr. 16, 2015
Madden US 2015/0261398 A1 Sept. 17, 2015
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4–22 as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 15–18, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Klein, Wong, Phillips, and
Brackney. Final Act. 5–29.4
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Klein, Wong, Phillips, Brackney, and
Ullrich. Id. at 29–31.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 The statement of the rejection does not list claims 21 and 22, however the
body of the rejection addresses them. Final Act. 2, 3. Accordingly, we
consider the omission of claims 21 and 22 from the statement of the
rejection to be harmless error.
Appeal 2020-003865
Application 15/581,038
5
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Klein, Wong, Phillips, Brackney, and Madden. Id. at
31–32.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9–23 and the Reply Brief, pages 3–9.5
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the combined
teachings of Klein, Wong, Phillips, and Brackney render claim 1 obvious.
Appeal Br. 9–12. In particular, Appellant argues that none of the applied
references teaches or suggests a graphics overlay confined to an area
enclosed by edges or a frame of a marking pattern, as recited in independent
claim 1. Id. According to Appellant, Brackney’s graphics overlay includes
IDs positioned on or proximate to associated diffusers, but the graphics
overlay is not confined to an area enclosed by edges or a frame of the
marking pattern. Id. at 12–13 (citing Brackney ¶¶ 38, 39, Figs. 2, 3). More
particularly, Appellant argues that because Brackney’s ID markers do not
extend all the way across and down the wall of the facility, it is intended to
operate similarly to the QR codes in Klein. Id. at 13. Further, Appellant
argues that there is insufficient suggestion or rationale in Brackney to
motivate the ordinarily-skilled artisan to confine the virtual graphics of
Klein to an area enclosed by edges or a frame of the QR codes when the
virtual graphics components are overlayed on a representative image. Id.
Furthermore, Appellant argues that although Wong discloses QR codes that

5 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Appeal 2020-003865
Application 15/581,038
6
can be scanned to identify a target device containing a virtual control
interface in a defined area close to an element being controlled, the defined
area is not the same area as the QR code, and, thus, does not teach confining
the graphics overlay. Id. at 13–14(citing Wong ¶¶ 26, Figs. 7, 9).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
The Examiner relies upon Klein for its teaching of a system including
a smartphone for scanning QR code stickers on the front panel of an
uninterruptable power supply (UPS) to capture code for components (e.g.,
network ports) in proximity of a technician. Ans. 3, 4 (citing Klein ¶¶ 17, 38,
40). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Klein’s QR codes teach marking
patterns arranged on the device including edges or a frame that encloses an
area on the device. Id. at 4. The Examiner further relies upon Wong’s virtual
control interface superimposed over a defined area of a target device to teach
overlaying the virtual control interface on a defined area on the device. Id.
(citing Wong ¶¶ 3). Additionally, the Examiner finds Brackney’s disclosure
of overlaying on a graphic representation of device digital objects associated
with each identified diffuser teaches overlays confined to defined areas. Id.
at 5, 6 (citing Brackney ¶¶ 38, 48). Therefore, the Examiner finds that
Brackney teaches confining to a defined area by the edge or frame (of the
marking pattern) a virtual graphic component overlaid with the
representative image of the device. Id. at 6. We do not agree with the
Examiner.
As persuasively argued by Appellant, the disputed claim limitation
requires confining in an area defined by the marking pattern’s edges or
frame the graphic overlay that is combined with a graphics representation of
the device. At best, the proposed combination of applied references teaches
Appeal 2020-003865
Application 15/581,038
7
generating a virtual overlay, which is combined with a representative image
of a device. Thus, while Brackney discloses combining a virtual graphics
overlay with a representative image of a device, it falls short of teaching that
the graphic overlay is confined within edges or the frame of the marking
pattern (QR code).
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Similarly, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 2 and 4–22, which also recite the
disputed limitations.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1, 2, and 4–22.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–12,
15–18, 20–22 103
Klein, Wong, Phillips,
Brackney
1, 2, 4–12,
15–18,
20–22
13, 14 103 Klein, Wong, Phillips, Brackney, Ullrich 13, 14
19 103 Klein, Wong, Phillips, Brackney, Madden 19
Overall
Outcome 1, 2, 4–22

REVERSED