VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2020001257 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

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