AUDI AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2020

2020001398 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 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.
15/780,193 05/30/2018 Joris MERTENS 2319.1266 5622
21171 7590 11/23/2020
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
AZARI, SEPEHR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2020 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):
ptomail@s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORIS MERTENS, GEORG HASLINGER,
EDWIN OLLEFERS, and MARKUS KLUG

Appeal 2020-001398
Application 15/780,193
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 12–26 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act.
1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held
on October 27, 2020.
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 Audi AG. See
Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification filed May 30, 2018 (claiming benefit
of PCT/EP2017/066165, filed June 29, 2017); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”),
Appeal 2020-001398
Application 15/780,193

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention, according to Appellant, generally relates to “a vehicle
having a display instrument, in which a windowpane of the vehicle is used
as a display area” (Spec. ¶ 2), and “provide[s] a vehicle having an operator
control and display apparatus and a method for operating such a vehicle”
(Spec. ¶ 5). Appellant’s claims recite vehicles and methods for operating a
vehicle having a recognition device that detects the position of a vehicle
occupant, and an operator control and display apparatus interconnected with
the recognition device. The operator control and display apparatus includes
a display region that presents information including a symbol—representing
the detected vehicle occupant—that is displayed in a portion of the display
region based on the occupant position detected by the recognition device.
The operator control and display apparatus changes the portion of the
display region where the symbol is displayed to represent a change in the
position of the vehicle occupant. See Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 7–11. Claims 12
(directed to a vehicle) and 21 (directed to a method) are independent. Claim
12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
12. A vehicle, comprising:
a recognition device configured to detect a position of a
vehicle occupant; and
an operator control and display apparatus, coupled to the
recognition device, having a display region configured to
present information items in the display region, including a
symbol presentable in a portion of the display region
determined depending on the position detected by the

filed July 26, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Dec. 9, 2019. We
also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Apr.
19, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Oct. 11, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001398
Application 15/780,193

3
recognition device, the symbol representing the vehicle
occupant, and to change the portion of the display region where
the symbol is displayed to represent a change in the position of
the vehicle occupant.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Skourup et al.
(“Skourup”)
US 2010/0095233 A1 Apr. 15, 2010
Sakata et al.
(“Sakata”)
US 2010/0269072 A1 Oct. 21, 2010
Jaegal US 2017/0098364 A1 Apr. 6, 2017

REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 12–16 and 18–26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jaegal and Sakata. See Final Act. 3–9.
2. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jaegal, Sakata, and Skourup. See Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 12 (as well as independent
claim 21, and dependent claims 13–16, 18–20, and 22–26) as obvious over
Jaegal and Sakata. See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4. Appellant contends that
Jaegal and Sakata do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date (Oct. 7, 2014) after the AIA’s effective (March
16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-001398
Application 15/780,193

4
Appeal Br. 2–7; Reply Br. 1–4. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia,
that Jaegal does not teach a symbol representing a vehicle occupant in a
portion of the display region (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 3) and Sakata does not
teach changing a portion of the display region where the symbol is displayed
to represent a change in the position of the vehicle occupant—i.e., moving
the symbol within the display region to reflect occupant movement (see, e.g.,
Appeal Br. 5–6). See Appeal Br. 2–7; Reply Br. 1–4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Jaegal
and Sakata do not teach or suggest “a recognition device [that] detect[s] a
position of a vehicle occupant” and a “display apparatus, coupled to the
recognition device” with a “display region . . . to present information items
. . . including a symbol presentable in a portion of the display region” where
the location of the symbol in the display region is “determined depending on
the position detected by the recognition device,” and “the symbol
represent[s] the vehicle occupant,” and the display apparatus is configured to
also “change the portion of the display region where the symbol is displayed
to represent a change in the position of the vehicle occupant.” Appeal Br. 9
(Claims App.) (claim 1). See Appeal Br. 2–7; Reply Br. 1–4.
The Examiner relies on Jaegal to teach a symbol representing a
vehicle occupant displayed in a display region where the location of the
symbol in the display region is determined based on the detected position of
the occupant by a detection (recognition) device. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4
(citing Jaegal ¶¶ 68–73, 149, 150; Fig. 25 (element I5)). The Examiner
concedes that the icon (I5) is a representation of an item left in a vehicle by a
passenger. Final Act. 3. Even so, the Examiner concludes that the icon is
displayed when Jaegal’s system determines that the passenger has left the
Appeal 2020-001398
Application 15/780,193

5
item in the vehicle, so the icon represents the passenger. See Final Act. 3;
Ans. 3–4. In other words an icon in some way associated with an occupant
or the actions of an occupant “read[s] on the limitation of being a symbol
representing the vehicle occupant.” Ans. 4.
The Examiner relies on Sakata to teach changing the portion of the
display region (displaying the symbol representing the occupant) to
represent a change in the position of the vehicle occupant. See Final Act. 4;
Ans. 4 (citing Jaegal ¶¶ 67, 98, 9; Fig. 6A). The Examiner explains that both
Jaegal and Sakata determine an occupant’s position and display “information
to [an occupant] according to the determined position and Sakata further
teaches changing the position of the displayed information according to a
changing of the position of the [occupant].” Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted). In
other words the information is displayed based on the occupant/user location
and changes with the occupant/user location.
The Examiner misconstrues Appellant’s claim language. Appellant’s
claim 12 expressly recites displaying a symbol that represents an occupant in
a display region, that the portion of the display region where the symbol is
displayed is determined by the occupant’s detected position, and that the
portion of the display region changes when the occupant’s detected position
changes (i.e., the portion where the symbol is displayed changes to a
different portion or the symbol moves to a different portion). Neither Jaegal,
nor Sakata teaches (or suggests) these features of claim 12. At best Jaegal
teaches a symbol associated with (but not actually representing) an occupant.
Nor does Jaegal teach (or suggest) the symbol representing the occupant’s
current position. Although Jaegal determines an occupant position (outside
the vehicle, entering the vehicle, exiting the vehicle, and inside the vehicle
Appeal 2020-001398
Application 15/780,193

6
(and in different spaces within the vehicle)) the symbol, at best, is displayed
nearest the occupant location, which is not the same as presenting the
symbol in a portion of a display region determined by the occupant’s
position (i.e., represent the occupant and the occupant’s position in the
vehicle in the display region). See Jaegal ¶¶ 68–73, 149, 150. Sakata also
does not teach or suggest displaying a symbol (representing the occupant
and the occupant’s position) in a particular portion of a display region or
changing the display region where the symbol is displayed based on an
occupant’s movement (change in location within a vehicle). At best Sakata
teaches a display region (the information that is displayed) following a user
(the occupant). Again, this is not the same as changing the portion of the
display region where the symbol is displayed to represent a change in
position.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Jaegal and Sakata
renders obvious Appellant’s claim 12. Independent claim 21 includes
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 13–16, 18–20, and 22–26
depend from and stand with their respective base claims. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 12–16 and
18–26 over Jaegal and Sakata.
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Jaegal, Sakata, and Skourup. See Final Act. 10. The
Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional cited
reference (Skourup) cures the deficiencies of the Jaegal, Sakata combination
(supra). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of dependent claim 17 for the same reasons set forth for claim 12 (supra).
Appeal 2020-001398
Application 15/780,193

7
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12–
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12–26.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–16, 18–26 103 Jaegal, Sakata 12–16, 18–26
17 103 Jaegal, Sakata,
Skourup

Overall
Outcome
12–26

REVERSED