Ex Parte Mueller

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2017

12281557 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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. 12/281,557 05/04/2009 Mario Mueller BOSC.P5345US/11602881 3248 24972 7590 03/30/2017 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022 EXAMINER NG, JONATHAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2017 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): nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARIO MUELLER Appeal 2015-003624 Application 12/281,557 Technology Center 3600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 11—16, 19—25, and 27—31, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal 2015-003624 Application 12/281,557 THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for displaying at least one navigation instruction provided by a navigation system of a vehicle (Spec. 1,11. 2-4). Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal1. 11. A method for displaying at least two navigation instructions of a navigation system in a vehicle, comprising: recording a section of surroundings of the vehicle using a camera; displaying as an image sequence the surroundings by a display unit; displaying the at least two navigation instructions by the display unit, wherein, when the vehicle is moving, positions of the at least two navigation instructions within the image sequence of the surroundings are changed as a function of a movement of the surroundings occurring relative to the vehicle; detecting at least one of a curve and a change in elevation in an expected trajectory of the vehicle; and adapting an appearance of at least one of the at least two navigation instructions so that: in the case of the detected curve, the at least one adapted navigation instruction is turned in accordance with the curve, and in the case of the detected change of elevation, the at least one adapted navigation instruction is at least one of stretched and compressed in accordance with the change in elevation, wherein the at least two navigation instructions are represented repeatedly along a course of a roadway in front of the vehicle, and wherein an interval between the at least two navigation instructions depends on a vehicle speed in such a way that the interval increases along with an increase in the vehicle speed. 1 Claim 11 above is taken from the Appeal Brief. The Reply Brief includes a Claims Appendix that is taken to be an error in the filing of the claims as those claims are directed to a parking brake system. 2 Appeal 2015-003624 Application 12/281,557 THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 11—16, 20-25, and 28—30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hortner (US 7,039,521 B2, iss. May 2, 2006), Geelen (US 2009/0125234 Al, pub. May 14, 2009), and Togano (JP 2001- 241962, A, pub. Sept. 7,2001). 2. Claims 19, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hortner, Geelen, Togano, and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. ANALYSIS The Examiner has rejected claims 11—16, 20-25, and 28—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hortner, Geelen, and Togano (Ans. 3-5, 10-12). The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 11 is improper because the combination fails to disclose the limitations of claims 18 and 26, which have been incorporated into claim 11, and that hindsight is used in the combination (App. Br. 3). Specifically, the Appellant argues that claim 11 adds the technical feature to prompt navigation instructions “in due course” 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal 2015-003624 Application 12/281,557 before they have to be followed by the driver (App. Br. 3). The Appellant argues that this gives accurate instructions “based on time before an action has to be taken” (App. Br. 3, 4 (emphasis omitted)). We agree with the Examiner’s rationale and adopt the rejection of record set forth in the Answer. Here, the Appellant’s arguments fail to show that a prima facie case has not been established. The Appellant argues that the cited prior art fails to prompt navigation instructions “in due course” before they have to be followed by the driver, but there is no such limitation regarding such “in due course” in the claim. The Appellant also argues that the cited prior art fails to give accurate instructions “based on time before an action has to be taken,” but, again, there is no such limitation in the claims. The Appellant argues that the limitations of claims 18 and 26 are now incorporated into claim 11, but fails to specifically address how the prior art fails to disclose this. For instance, former claim 18 required “wherein an interval between the at least two navigation instructions depends on a vehicle speed in such a way that the interval increases along with an increase in the vehicle speed.” Here, the Appellant has failed to even specifically recite the claim limitation, let alone provide any arguments, in that regard. A statement that merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(o)(l). Only those arguments actually made by the Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which the Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Here, the Appellant has failed to provide any persuasive arguments as to why the prior art fails to disclose or suggest any specific claim limitation. 4 Appeal 2015-003624 Application 12/281,557 For these above reasons the rejection of claim 11 is sustained. The Appellant has provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of those claims is therefore sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11—16, 19—25, and 27—31 is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5