Van Seggelen, Rob et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2020

2019001146 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 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.
12/733,297 03/12/2010 Rob Van Seggelen 548/US/2 3368
75090 7590 09/18/2020
TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V.
IP Creation
De Ruyterkade 154
AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC
NETHERLANDS
EXAMINER
YI, RINNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2020 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):
patents@tomtom.com
tony@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ROB VAN SEGGELEN and BREGHT BOSCHKER
________________

Appeal 2019-001146
Application 12/733,297
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 36–53, which constitute all of the pending claims.1
Appeal Br. 9–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies TomTom Navigation, B.V. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed June 11, 2018, as amended July 27, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”) 1.
Appeal 2019-001146
Application 12/733,297

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A communications apparatus includes a processing
resource arranged to support, when in use, a main application and
a user interface. The apparatus, in at least one embodiment, also
includes a data store and a user interface host entity arranged to
access, when in use, a user interface template selectable in
response to a received message. The user interface template
includes an expression of a number of user interface elements.
The user interface is arranged to translate the user interface
template selected from the expression of the number of user
interface elements into a user interface instantiation.
Abstract.
Independent claim 36, reproduced below with emphasis added to the
disputed claim language, illustrates the appealed claims’ subject matter:
36. A communications apparatus, comprising:
a processing resource arranged to provide a user interface
for controlling one or more functions of a main application and
at least one external application relative to the main application;
a communications interface arranged to support
communication with the at least one external application via a
communications network;
a data store comprising a plurality of user interface
templates, each user interface template comprising a
predetermined expression of a number of user interface elements;
and
a user interface host entity arranged to access a user
interface template from the data store selectable in response to a
received message, and to translate a selected user interface
template selected from the predetermined expression of the
number of user interface elements into a user interface
instantiation;
Appeal 2019-001146
Application 12/733,297

3
wherein the user interface host entity is arranged to:
receive messages from the main application and the
at least one external application comprising a priority
level for the respective application, and permit the
application having the higher priority level to select the
user interface template that is translated into the user
interface instantiation;
receive at least one message from the external
application with configuration data specifying information
to be rendered for display for at least one user interface
element of the selected user interface template;
generate event data in response to a user interaction
with the at least one user interface element of the selected
user interface template; and
send the generated event data to the external
application for interpretation thereby.

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 36, 38–50, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Falcon (US 2006/0106965 Al; published May 18,
2006) and Skwarek (US 2005/0231529 Al; published Oct. 20, 2005). Final
Act. 6–14.2
Claims 37, 51, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Falcon, Skwarek, and Tanaka (US 2005/0055154 Al;
published Mar. 10, 2005). Final Act. 14–15.

2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Specification filed
February 23, 2010, as amended September 22, 2017 (“Spec.”); the Final
Action mailed December 28, 2017 (“Final Act.”) and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed September 10, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-001146
Application 12/733,297

4
DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Falcon discloses most of the limitations of
independent claim 36, with the exception of the following language:
wherein the user interface host entity is arranged to:
receive messages from the main application and the at
least one external application comprising a priority level for the
respective application, and permit the application having the
higher priority level to select the user interface template that is
translated into the user interface instantiation.
Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that Skwarek teaches this language and
that motivation existed to incorporate this teaching into the Falcon’s
interfaces. Id. at 9–10.
More specifically, the Examiner interprets the claimed “main
application” as reading on Skwarek’s program 7, which is contained within
display controller 4. Final Act. 16 (“the vehicle can be interpreted as the
main application”); Ans. 8 (“a message for display control 4 of the system/
vehicle (e.g., program 7)”) (emphasis added); see also Skwarek, FIG. 1
(depicting display controller 4 as including program 7).
The Examiner further interprets the claimed “external applications” as
reading on Skwarek’s programs 13, 15, 16, which correspond to the
telephone, radio, and navigation system. Final Act. 16 (“the ‘radio’,
‘navigation’, ‘email’, etc. can be interpreted as the external application”);
Ans. 8; see Skwarek, FIG. 1 (depicting applications 8–10, which include
programs 13, 15, 16).
The Examiner reasons, “[t]he main application of the vehicle
determines or assigns priorities of the external programs/applications.”
Final Act. 16. The Examiner further explains,
Appeal 2019-001146
Application 12/733,297

5
If the information in one of the low-priority data sources
(e.g., the telephone 8, the radio 9, and the navigation system 10)
has changed, a message for display control 4 of the system/
vehicle (e.g., program 7) is generated by the respective program
of the data sources due to the change in the information and is
transmitted over the bus 11 to display controller 4 of the system/
vehicle (e.g., program 7). Thus, Skwarek[] teaches not only
displaying data sources based on a list of priorities stored in a
memory[,] but also receiving messages from the main
application/program and the at least one external application
comprising a priority level for the respective application (e.g.,
the program 13 of the telephone 8, the program 15 of the radio 9,
the program 16 of the navigation system 100).
Ans. 8 (emphasis added).
Appellant asserts,
Skwarek’s display controller/program, [which is] based on a list
of priorities stored in a memory (element 5, FIG. 1), sets aside
areas for each data source for which a priority has been selected.[]
Skwarek does not describe or suggest data sources
communicating their own priorities, selecting templates
generally, and/or the data sources themselves selecting templates
based on a priority of the data sources. Skwarek also does not
describe or suggest that the display controller/program either:
(1) has a priority or (2) displays its own information in the main
area or the secondary areas – the display controller/program
simply displays information received from the data sources in
corresponding areas of the display based on the priority of
corresponding subjects.
Appeal Br. 11 (citing Skwarek ¶ 26).
Appellant continues, “what actually controls what is displayed in
Skwarek’s display window by the display controller/program is the prior
selection of priorities.” Id. According to Appellant, “Skwarek describes
how the subjects are assigned to areas in a display window based on a
priority (i.e., from the . . . list of priorities in memory – not from any
Appeal 2019-001146
Application 12/733,297

6
indication of priority in a message from the data sources).” Appeal Br. 11–
12 (citing Skwarek ¶¶ 30–32). Appellant further urges, “Skwarek describes
how a user or a factory sets a priority for certain subjects.” Appeal Br. 11
(citing Skwarek, ¶¶ 26, 27).

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that Skwarek’s external data sources 8–
10 (and, hence, also their associated programs or applications 13, 15, 16)
have priority levels respectively assigned. See Skwarek FIG. 1 (depicting
display controller table 5 listing the respective priorities of the subjects,
“Telephone,” “Radio,” “Navigation,” and “E mail”). However, clam 36
requires more than the external applications just having a priority level for
the respective applications. Claim 36 additionally requires that the user
interface host entity receive messages from the main application, as well as
the external applications, and that these messages comprise data that sets
forth the respective priority levels.
So even if we agree with the Examiner that the display controller’s
program 7 reasonably corresponds to the claim main application, this fact
would not establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner has
not established that the claimed priorities are received from either Skwarek’s
program 7 or external programs 13, 15, 16. Skwarek, instead, discloses the
source priorities are contained in the memory 5 of the display controller 4.
Skwarek ¶ 26; FIG. 1. Furthermore, this memory 5 is separate from the
display controller’s program 7. That is, we agree with Appellant (Appeal
Br. 5) that Skwarek retrieves the priorities from the memory 5—not any of
the applications.
Appeal 2019-001146
Application 12/733,297

7
Because Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of Examiner error, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of independent claim 36. We, likewise,
reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 38–50 and 52, which either
depend from claim 36 or otherwise recite similar claim language.
With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 37, 51,
am 53, the Examiner does not rely on the additionally cited reference,
Tanaka, to cure the deficiency of the obviousness rejection, noted above.
Final Act. 14–15. We, therefore, reverse this obviousness rejection for the
reasons set forth above in relation to claim 36.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
36, 38–50, 52 103 Falcon,
Skwarek
36, 38–50, 52
37, 51, 53 103 Falcon,
Skwarek,
Tanaka
37, 51, 53
Overall
Outcome
36–53