VOLKSWAGEN AG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 2, 2020

13836191 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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. 13/836,191 03/15/2013 Matthew JOLDA 1000/0129PUS1 5022 60601 7590 10/02/2020 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. 4000 Legato Road Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 EXAMINER OLSHANNIKOV, ALEX ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2020 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): MAILROOM@MG-IP.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATTHEW JOLDA, NILS KOETTER, and WILLIAM LATHROP ____________ Appeal 2019-003294 Application 13/836,191 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2019-003294 Application 13/836,191 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 13–17, and 21–23, which are all pending claims. Appeal Br. 13–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellant’s invention is directed to a “touch bar [] configured to receive user touch input, and a proximity sensor disposed on the console surface, the proximity sensor configured to detect a user gesture” in which an “interactive touch surface is configured to receive sliding user input across the interactive touch surface to navigate through content options and is configured to receive pressing user input for selecting the content options.” Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below: 1. A touch bar, comprising: an interactive touch surface, the interactive touch surface comprising a capacitive surface having a plurality of interactive zones, each interactive zone including a content option, configured to detect user touch input for controlling a separate vehicle-mounted display screen, each interactive zone corresponding to an interactive icon on the separate vehicle-mounted display screen, wherein the interactive touch surface is configured to receive sliding user input across the interactive touch surface to navigate through the content options and is 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Volkswagen AG and Audi AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003294 Application 13/836,191 3 configured to receiving pressing user input for selecting the content options, and wherein upon receiving the sliding user input the content options in the interactive zones change to provide additional interactive icons not initially presented on the separate vehicle-mounted display screen and not initially associated with the interactive touch surface. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). B. The Rejections on Appeal2 The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Colgate (US 2007/0236450 A1; Oct. 11, 2007) and Missig (US 2011/0302532 A1; Dec. 8, 2011). Final Act. 7. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 14–17, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Colgate, Missig, Sizelove (US 2012/0132746 A1; May 31, 2012) (hereinafter “Sizelove ’12”), and Sizelove (US 2009/0079705 A1; Mar. 26, 2009) (hereinafter “Sizelove ’09”). Final Act. 9. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Colgate, Missig, Sizelove ’12, and Buttolo (US 2013/0270896 A1; Oct. 17, 2013). Final Act. 14. The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Colgate, Missig, and Zadesky (US 2007/0052691 A1; Mar. 8, 2007). Final Act. 15. 2 The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 13–17, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn in the Answer. See Final Act. 6, Ans. 3–4. Appeal 2019-003294 Application 13/836,191 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1 Appellant first argues that Missig “does not teach or suggest that movement of the selection indicator by touch gestures on the touch pad 450 provide additional interactive icons not initially presented on the separate vehicle-mounted display screen.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis in original). We do not find this argument persuasive. Regarding the claimed “upon receiving the sliding user input the content options in the interactive zones change to provide additional interactive icons not initially presented on the separate vehicle-mounted display screen,” the Examiner finds that it is clear from the from the Figures 5Q-5T of Missig that when a user moves their finger 5050 down on the touch-sensitive surface 452, the content on the display 450 begins to scroll up. As a result, new content is displayed, including “Advertisement 3” and even the top of another content item which is below “Advertisement 3”. Ans. 5. The Examiner’s finding is confirmed by the text supporting the Figures, stating that [f]or example, in FIGS. 5Q-5T, in response to receiving an input that corresponds to a first gesture (e.g., contact 5044 and subsequent movement of the contact across the touch-sensitive surface 452 in FIG. 5Q) the object selection indicator 5010 is moved to the updated location (e.g., a location proximate to the “government” hyperlink 5006-5 in FIG. 5R), and the user Appeal 2019-003294 Application 13/836,191 5 interface scrolled upwards on the display (e.g., as illustrated in FIGS. 5S-5T) so as to display the object selection indicator 5010 proximate to the center of the predefined region 5038, as illustrated in FIG. 5T. Missig ¶ 275 (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that the touch-sensitive surface 452 can be divided into interactive zones which correspond to different content options which are presented on display 450. Once a user performs a sliding user input on the touch-sensitive surface 452, the content presented on display 450 scrolls and displays new content. Ans. 6. Missig teaches a sliding user input on the touch-sensitive surface that performs a scrolling action and displays new content including a hyperlink (corresponding to an icon) that is selectable via a “tap gesture” on the “touch-sensitive surface 452.” See Missig ¶¶ 275, 281. Appellant next argues “Missig does not teach or suggest that the content options in the interactive zones change, which are on the touchbar, to provide additional interactive icons not initially presented on the interactive touch surface.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis in original). Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which states that “additional icons” are not “initially associated with the interactive touch surface.”3 3 Appellant appears to additionally argue in the Reply that the touch bar is also configured to display icons or “content options.” See Reply Br. 3–4, quoting Spec. ¶ 33. Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether the disclosure contains sufficient enablement or written description support. Appeal 2019-003294 Application 13/836,191 6 Additionally, Appellant attacks Missig individually. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). For example, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Colgate teaches a VFHD that controls the main display. The VFHD is matched one to one to a position in a section of the visual display. Thus, the VFHD contains various zones mapped to the icons on the visual display.” Final Act. 7, citing Colgate Figs. 1 and 20, ¶¶ 53, 11. Appellant does not address this finding. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 5 and 15 commensurate in scope, and all dependent claims not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 9–11. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4 103(a) Colgate, Missig 1, 4 5, 14–17, 21, 23 103(a) Colgate, Missig, Sizelove ’12, Sizelove ’09 5, 14–17, 21, 23 13 103(a) Colgate, Missig, Sizelove ’12, Buttolo 13 22 103(a) Colgate, Missig, Zadesky 22 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 5, 13–17, 21–23 Appeal 2019-003294 Application 13/836,191 7 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED