Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 2, 2020

2020002960 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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. 16/008,595 06/14/2018 Richard D. Beckert 337342-US-CNT 8003 69316 7590 11/02/2020 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER DEMOSKY, PATRICK E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2020 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): chriochs@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD D. BECKERT, PHILLIP G. HAYS, STEVEN P. MAILLET, and ANDREW W. LOVITT ________________ Appeal 2020-002960 Application 16/008,595 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20–23, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002960 Application 16/008,595 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to fault tolerance for in-vehicle entertainment and information systems. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and read as follows: 1. A fault tolerant display system for a vehicle, the system comprising: a video camera; an in-vehicle infotainment system; a display in a cabin of the vehicle; and a hardware module separate from the in-vehicle infotainment system, wherein the hardware module is interposed between the video camera, the in-vehicle infotainment system, and the display; the hardware module configured to: receive streaming video from the video camera; merge the streaming video with overlays from the in-vehicle infotainment system to create an overlaid streaming video; display the overlaid streaming video on the display in the cabin of the vehicle; detect failure of the in-vehicle infotainment system; and in response to detecting failure of the in-vehicle infotainment system, switch to display on the display in the cabin of the vehicle the streaming video from the video camera and at least one overlay generated by the hardware module, the streaming video from the video camera and the at least one overlay generated by the hardware module displayed essentially simultaneously on the display. Appeal 2020-002960 Application 16/008,595 3 The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 6‒8, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baur (US 2012/0154591 A1; June 21, 2012), Camilleri (US 2006/0125919 A1; June 15, 2006), and DeWind (US 2006/0164230 A1; July 27, 2006). Final Act. 5‒10. Claims 2‒5, 9‒11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21‒23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baur, Camilleri, DeWind, and Wang (US 2014/0368653 A1; Dec. 18, 2014). Final Act. 10‒16. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Baur, Camilleri, and DeWind teaches or suggests “in response to detecting failure of the in-vehicle infotainment system, switch to display on the display in the cabin of the vehicle the streaming video from the video camera and at least one overlay generated by the hardware module.” See Final Act. 8. In particular, the Examiner finds DeWind teaches a diagnostic system that detects faults of a vehicle accessory or system and indicates those faults on a display. Id. at 7 (citing DeWind ¶¶ 136‒140). The Examiner finds DeWind teaches the “in response” limitation by teaching that if images from a reverse backup camera are not received by a display, a fault is indicated on the display. Id. at 8 (citing DeWind ¶¶ 138, 139, 244, 246). Appellant argues the Examiner errs because if the rear camera fails to send a rear camera image to the system, it is not possible to “switch to” the rear camera image as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9‒10. Appellant argues that if the display is displaying a rear camera image when a fault is detected and displays an overlay on that rear camera image to indicate the fault, the hardware module is not configured to “switch to” displaying the Appeal 2020-002960 Application 16/008,595 4 rear camera image “in response to detecting failure of the in-vehicle infotainment system” as claimed. Id. at 10. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites a hardware module that receives streaming video from a video camera, merges the streaming video with overlays from the in-vehicle infotainment system to create an “overlaid streaming video” and displays the overlaid streaming video on the display. Claim 1 further recites that in response to detecting failure of the in-vehicle infotainment system, the display—which had been displaying overlaid streaming video—is switched to instead display streaming video from the video camera along with an overlay from a different source, the hardware module. The Examiner fails to explain how the cited references teach or suggest the claimed “switch.” In particular, the Examiner finds DeWind teaches displaying alerts related to fault conditions on its display, but DeWind teaches displaying fault indicators overlaid on whatever information is already shown on the display. See DeWind ¶¶ 136‒ 140. The Examiner has not identified, nor have we found, any teaching in DeWind where the system “switch[es] to display on the display in the cabin of the vehicle the streaming video from the video camera” and where this switch occurs “in response to detecting failure of the in-vehicle infotainment system.” Nor has the Examiner explained how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined DeWind’s teachings with the teachings of Baur and Camilleri to teach or suggest this limitation. For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently establish that Baur, Camilleri, and DeWind, alone or in combination, teach or suggest “in response to detecting failure of the in-vehicle infotainment system, switch to display on the display in the cabin of the vehicle the streaming video from Appeal 2020-002960 Application 16/008,595 5 the video camera and at least one overlay generated by the hardware module.”2 We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 6‒8, 12, and 20. Claims 2‒5, 9‒11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21‒23 stand rejected as unpatentable over Baur, Camilleri, DeWind, and Wang. See Final Act. 10‒ 16. The Examiner does not find Wang cures the deficiency identified above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2‒5, 9‒ 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21‒23 for the same reasons. SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6‒8, 12, 20 103 Baur, Camilleri, DeWind 1, 6‒8, 12, 20 2‒5, 9‒11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21‒23 103 Baur, Camilleri, DeWind, Wang 2‒5, 9‒ 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21‒23 Overall Outcome 1‒23 REVERSED 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.