VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFTDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 1, 20212020001257 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/111,914 09/20/2016 Holger WILD VW-1010US (K 20386 WO/US) 5523 130217 7590 06/01/2021 LOZA & LOZA, LLP Peter Zura, Esq. 305 N. Second Ave. #127 Upland, CA 91786 EXAMINER LEGGETT, ANDREA C. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2021 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): docketing@lozaip.com peter@lozaip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HOLGER WILD Appeal 2020-001257 Application 15/111,914 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19–39. See Final Act. 1. Claims 1−18 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 2. 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 Volkswagen AG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001257 Application 15/111,914 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a user interface and method for adapting a view of a display unit. Claims 19 and 30 are independent claims. Claim 19, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 19. A method for configuring a display unit of a user interface for a vehicle, comprising: retrieving, via a processor, a configuration mode for producing a separated view on the display unit comprising a first section and a second section; assigning a functional scope for at least one of the first section and the second section; generating a plurality of operating surfaces in the separated view on the display unit between the first section and the second section, each of the operating surf aces representing a respective function for the vehicle; and receiving a selection on one of the plurality of operating surfaces and ass1gnmg the selected operating surface to one of the first section and second section based on the selection, wherein the selection comprises a movement of a selected operating surface to one of the first section and second section, and wherein the assigned operating surface is configured to execute its respective function for the vehicle under its assigned functional scope. Appeal Br. 16 (Claim Appendix). REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Aguilar US 2011/0107272 A1 May 5, 2011 Appeal 2020-001257 Application 15/111,914 3 REJECTION This case involves a single rejection: claims 19–39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aguilar (U.S. 2011/0107272). Final Act. 2. OPINION We review 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). The particular arguments on which we decide this Appeal involve the limitation “generating a plurality of operating surfaces in the separated view on the display unit between the first section and the second section, each of the operating surfaces representing a respective function for the vehicle,” hereinafter the “generating” limitation. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that Aguilar discloses the “generating” limitation. First, we discuss the claim language in light of the Specification regarding the “generating” limitation. The plain language of the claim states that “in the separated view of the display unit,” the method generates a “plurality of operating surfaces” “between the first section and the second section.” The Specification describes these operating surfaces as operating surfaces 5, 6, 7, and 8, in Figure 3, reproduced below. Appeal 2020-001257 Application 15/111,914 4 Figure 3, above, depicts first section A on the left area of the display and section B on the right area of the display, with demarcation area 9 displaying operating surfaces 5, 6, 7, and 8. Spec. ¶¶ 30−31.2 Appellant states that at least portions of the claimed configuration are shown in Figure 3. Appeal Br. 10−11. In distinguishing the prior art, for instance, Appellant emphasizes the importance of the separated view on the display unit between the first section and the second section. Id. at 13−14. The emphasis highlights, as we understand Appellant’s argument, that demarcation area 9 between section A and section B of Figure 3 provides the view that allows the assignment of vehicle functions to the operating panels (i.e., sections A and B). Id. For instance, each operating surface represents a vehicle function, such as, for example, operating surface 6 representing radio reception function and 7 representing music playback. Spec. ¶ 30. The hand of 2 Citations to the Specification refer to the Specification dated September 20, 2016. Appeal 2020-001257 Application 15/111,914 5 user 3, as shown in Figure 3, assigns the music playback function to first section A by moving operating surface 7 to the left, according to arrow P. Id. At issue in this case is whether the “generating” limitation can be read so broadly as to not require any operating surface to be generated in a particular area of the screen, e.g., between the two sections of the displayed separated view. The Examiner relies on Aguilar’s Figures 1−3 and paragraphs 42 and 55 as disclosing the “generating” limitation, specifically with respect to Aguilar’s capability of moving each display segment to a desirable location on the user interface. Final Act. 3. In his Answer, the Examiner provides an interpretation of “generating . . . between” to mean that the operating surfaces are “generated between or moved between the first section and second section.” Ans. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains: “In other words, the ambiguous claim language allows for the applications to be moved to either side or segment of the user interface, and further assigns the application to that particular side.” Id. (emphasis added). We do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language. The claim requires “generating” the operating surfaces “between the first section and second section.” “‘[C]laims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and [the] claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).). In light of the Specification, the “generating” limitation does not lend itself to an interpretation in which the “operating surfaces” are merely “moved Appeal 2020-001257 Application 15/111,914 6 between” two split screens of a display. Put in context of the Specification, such an interpretation is not reasonable. The Specification describes, in connection with Figure 3 above, that in response to a long-press entry, the operating surfaces form a demarcation area between first section A and second section B. Spec. ¶ 30. The sequence of the operating surfaces is displayed in the demarcation area. Id. ¶ 31. The Specification describes the demarcation area as becoming “tapered to a narrow” line when the user lifts his hand from the display and the operating surfaces are no longer displayed. Id. ¶ 32. However, if the user again long presses the display, the Specification describes that the plurality of operating surfaces are “faded in” and displayed in the demarcation area as shown in Figure 6. Id. at ¶ 33. The Specification therefore describes that the operating surfaces are generated “between the first section and the second section” by displaying the operating surfaces on the display in some separate portion of the screen that is disposed between the first section and second section. Thus, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art were to read the “generating” limitation to include “moving” the operating surfaces, such movement would not replace the requirement that operating surfaces somehow show up on the separated view “between the first section and the second section.” The Examiner explains that Aguilar allows for the split-screen display to be swapped as evidence of the “generating” limitation. Ans. 5 (citing Aguilar ¶¶ 42, 51, 52, and 55). Aguilar’s Figure 5e, reproduced below, illustrates the swapping movement the Examiner relies on. See Aguilar ¶¶ 51, 52 (describing the function of Figures 5e and 5f); Ans. 5 (citing Aguilar ¶¶ 51, 52). Appeal 2020-001257 Application 15/111,914 7 Figure 5e depicts two screens 510 and 510’ and touching points 5c1 (in screen 510’) and 5c2 (in screen 510). Aguilar ¶¶ 51, 52. Aguilar states that when the user rotates the fingers to simultaneously move touching points 5c1 and 5c2 to their opposite screens, the screens swap places. Id. The swapping of these two screens merely moves the already displayed sections from one side to the other. Aguilar does not form any areas on the screen that show the claimed operating surfaces generated “between a first section and a second section” under a reasonable reading of the claim language. We find, therefore, that following the claim language, in light of the Specification, Aguilar does not display a plurality of operating surfaces between screens 510’ and 510. Furthermore, screens 510’ and 510 are not themselves operating surfaces, as they are not “generated” between any two sections of the display. Consequently, Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Aguilar. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED. Appeal 2020-001257 Application 15/111,914 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 19–39 102(a) Aguilar 19–39 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation