Ex Parte KUEHNE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

15021670 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/021,670 03/11/2016
21171 7590 09/20/2018
ST AAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marcus KUEHNE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2319.1183 4441
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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 MARCUS KUEHNE, ULRICH MUELLER, and
JOHANN SCHNEIFER
Appeal2018-007187
Application 15/021,670
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims
12-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief5-13. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "a method and a system for operating at
least one display device of a motor vehicle and a motor vehicle having a
system for operating at least one display device." Specification,
paragraph 2.
Appeal2018-007187
Application 15/021,670
Illustrative Claim
12. A method for operating at least one display device of
a motor vehicle, each display device having a display region, said
method comprising:
detecting a gaze direction of a gaze of a vehicle occupant
of the motor vehicle;
using the gaze direction to check whether the gaze of the
vehicle occupant has been directed gaze to the display region of
a first display device for at least a first predefined gazing
duration;
activating a first interaction mode, when the gaze of the
vehicle occupant has been directed to the display region of the
first display device for at least the first predefined gazing
duration, an operating device for controlling the first display
device being activated in the first interaction mode;
determining, after the first interaction mode has been
activated using at least one predetermined criterion, whether
control of the motor vehicle using information displayed by the
first display device has been concluded;
maintaining the first interaction mode as long as said
determining determines that the control of the motor vehicle
using information displayed by the first display device has not
been concluded unless at least one other predetermined criterion
has been satisfied; and
delaying activation of a second interaction mode, one of
the operating device and another operating device controlling a
second display device being activated in the second interaction
mode, by a predefined delay duration after detection that the gaze
of the vehicle occupant is directed to the display region of the
second display device for a second predefined gazing duration,
when the control of the motor vehicle using information
displayed by the first display device has not been concluded.
2
Appeal2018-007187
Application 15/021,670
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ishii (US Patent Application Publication
2010/0238280 Al; published September 23, 2018) and Wada (US Patent
Application Publication 2009/0231145 Al; published September 17, 2009).
Answer 2-13.
Claims 16, 18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ishii, Wada and Poulos (US Patent Application
Publication 2014/0237366 Al; published August 21, 2014). Answer 13-16.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 18, 2018), the Reply Brief (filed
July 3, 2018), the Answer (mailed May 3, 2018) and the Final Action
(mailed June 30, 2017) for the respective details.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
The Examiner finds:
Ishii is silent with regards to delaying activation of a second
interaction mode, by a predefined delay duration after detection
that the gaze of the vehicle occupant is directed to the display
region of the second display device for a second predefined
gazing duration, when the control of the motor vehicle using
information displayed by the input device has not been
concluded.
Answer 4.
The Examiner finds that Wada addresses Ishii' s noted deficiency
because:
3
Appeal2018-007187
Application 15/021,670
Wada et al. teaches delaying activation (Figure 15, Element 204.
Paragraph 156) of a second interaction mode (Figure 15, Element
205. Paragraphs 155 - 157), by a predefined delay duration (1
Minute. Paragraph 156) after detection that the gaze of the user
is directed to the display region of the second display device for
a second predefined gazing duration (Figures 15 and 16, Element
212. Paragraphs 161 and 120. Wada et al. discloses that the
control circuit determines whether the user is in an active state.
Wada et al. further discloses that the active state is determined
by detecting the pupil of the user.), when the control of the input
device has not been concluded (Figure 16. Paragraphs 159 - 166.
Wada et al. discloses that an input operation (Elements 213 and
214) will be provided when the operational panel is being
operated (Element 211) and the operation mode is enabled
(Element 212). This process will be repeated at a specific cycle.)
Answer 5.
Appellants contend "there is no mention in paragraphs [O 155] to
[0166] and nothing has been found elsewhere in Wada[] regarding
'activation of a second interaction mode' (claim 12, line 17, emphasis
added) after the predetermined time has expired in block S204 of FIG. 15 in
Wada[]." Appeal Brief 8. Appellants further contend that Wada fails to
address Ishii' s noted deficiency because "no suggestion can be found in
paragraphs [0155] to [0166] or elsewhere in Wada et al. that any
determination is made regarding whether 'the control of the motor vehicle
using information displayed by the first display device has not been
concluded' (claim 12, last 2 lines, emphasis added)."
Wada discloses "[a]t S203, the control circuit 18 inactivates the input
operation disable mode assigned to the operation panel 12a to be assigned
the input operation mode and activates the input operation enable mode."
Wada, paragraph 156. This allows an operator within the vehicle to utilize
the input operation mode of the operation panel 12a during a predetermined
4
Appeal2018-007187
Application 15/021,670
input operation enable time. Wada, paragraph 156. Wada's "input operation
disable mode" prevents input operation on the operation panel 12a to
"improve a conventional unlock operation." Wada, paragraph 149. In other
words, Wada's "input operation disable mode" prevents the incorrect
operation of panel 12a in such instances whereas a hand is placed near the
operation part for example:
[T]he operator's hand H is originally placed on the steering
wheel 6. When the hand H moves to a can holder 30, just letting
the hand H pass over the operation part 12a may unlock the
operation part 12a. The same applies to a case of moving the
hand H from the can holder 30 to the steering wheel 6. The
configuration can prevent such incorrect unlock operation.
Wada, paragraph 149.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Wada does not disclose
"delaying activation of a second interaction mode," as recited in claim 12
because Wada merely discloses deactivating the input operation mode of an
input panel to prevent incorrect operation of the panel. We reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 12, 19, and 20, which are
commensurate in scope, as well as dependent claims 13-18 and 21.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 12-21 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5