AUDI AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 13, 2021

2021000953 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 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.
16/084,115 10/18/2018 Christian FUNK 4557.0970001 6724
26111 7590 10/13/2021
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ALAEDDINI, BORNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2021 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN FUNK,
FLORENZ BARMEYER, TILMAN ARMBRUSTER,
CARSTEN GUT, and SAID OMERBEGOVIC

Appeal 2021-000953
Application 16/084,115
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Oct. 18, 2018 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action dated Dec. 31, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed July 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Sept. 22,
2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 20, 2020 (“Reply Br.).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Audi AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000953
Application 16/084,115

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a motor vehicle having at least one headlight
comprising a plurality of lighting segments and a control device for
controlling the lighting brightness that can be predefined separately for the
individual lighting segments. Spec. 1:2–11. Independent claim 10,
reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix, illustrates the
subject matter on appeal (paragraphing and emphasis added).
10. A motor vehicle having at least one headlight for
illuminating the surroundings of the motor vehicle and a control
device for controlling the at least one headlight,
wherein the at least one headlight comprises a plurality of
lighting segments that are arranged in a manner of a matrix, and
can be actuated separately by the control device for providing a
lighting brightness that can be predefined separately for the
individual lighting segments,
wherein a control parameter predefining the lighting
brightness for each of the lighting segments can be calculated
by the control device in at least one computing step for each of
the lighting segments as a function of input parameters that can
be provided by at least one vehicle device, and
wherein the control device executes the at least one
computing step for a first lighting segment in parallel to the at
least one computing step for at least one other lighting segment.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering
Appeal 2021-000953
Application 16/084,115

3
the argued claims in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejection.
The Examiner rejects claims 10–18 as follows. Final Act. 2–10.
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
10–13, 15 103 Matthias,3 Potter4
14, 16, 17 103 Matthias, Potter, Kobayashi5
18 103 Matthias, Potter, Takeda6

The Examiner finds Matthias discloses a lighting system for a
motorcycle having one headlight that comprises a plurality of lighting
segments which are actuated separately by a control device that performs
calculations in parallel. Final Act. 3 (citing Matthias Fig. 4, ¶¶ 11, 15, 16,
32–34). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matthias by using a multi-CPU
processor in place of Matthias’s control unit to produce parallel outputs as
taught by Potter in order to decrease the processing time and increase the
lighting response of the headlight. Id. at 4.
Appellant argues the combination of Matthias and Potter does not
teach or suggest the control device “executes the at least one computing step
for a first lighting segment in parallel to the at least one computer step for at

3 DE 102008044676 A1, pub. Mar. 4, 2010. Citations herein are to the
human translation in the record. Appellant does not identify error in the
human translation.
4 US 2018/0253609 A1, pub. Sept. 6, 2018.
5 US 2014/0175978 A1, pub. June 26, 2014.
6 US 2004/0179367 A1, pub. Sept. 16, 2004.
Appeal 2021-000953
Application 16/084,115

4
least one other lighting segment” as recited in claim 10. Appeal Br. 5.
According to Appellant, Matthias’s calculations that are executed in parallel
are not calculations to determine the “control parameter predefining the
lighting brightness” for individual lighting segments as required by claim 10.
Id. at 6. Appellant directs us to Matthias’s paragraph 34 which describes the
calculations use “different parameters 29 . . . to perform a state detection 9 in
the control unit 7 of the motorcycle.” Id. (quoting Matthias ¶ 34). Appellant
asserts Matthias’s parameters “result from . . . data that can detect certain
states” including “data 31 for the pitch angle of the motorcycle . . . yaw
angle . . . deceleration . . . and . . . speed.” Id. at 6–7 (quoting Matthias ¶ 34).
Appellant contends Matthias’s calculations are based on data to detect a state
of the motorcycle for “situation identification” and not for calculating a
control parameter predefining the lighting brightness for each of the lighting
segments as required by claim 10. Id. at 7.
Appellant argues that Potter does not cure this deficiency of Matthias
and that the combination of Matthias with Potter’s multi-CPU processor
does not describe any operations actually performed in parallel let alone
executing the computing steps for a first lighting segment and at least one
other lighting segment as required by claim 10. Id. at 8–9. Appellant
contends the combination of Matthias and Potter would merely perform
Matthias’s calculations 43, 45 in parallel for determining Matthias’s
parameters 29 using Potter’s multi-CPU process to implement the LED drive
pattern assigned to the predetermined state. Id. at 9.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 10 as obvious over Matthias as modified
by Potter.
Appeal 2021-000953
Application 16/084,115

5
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Matthias’s
control system executes calculations in parallel. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also
does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Matthias’s calculations are for
the purpose of controlling the brightness of the headlight. Reply Br. 2. The
record supports the Examiner’s findings that Matthias discloses controlling
lighting brightness of lighting segments using parallel computing of
parameters predefining the lighting brightness. Matthias ¶¶ 16 (“A single
LED control is preferably possible, so that an intensity setting of the
illumination can be selected.”), 34 (“The light pattern 49 follows a
controlling pattern 47 which is the result of various calculations 43, . . .
which are carried out in parallel.”); Final Act. 3; Ans. 5. As the Examiner
explains, claim 10 broadly correlates parallel execution/computation with
adjusting the brightness of the lighting segments. Ans. 5. Thus, Matthias’s
calculations performed in parallel based on Matthias’s parameters 29 are
encompassed by Appellant’s claim 10 because they generally control
lighting brightness of the lighting segments. Id.
Appellant quotes claim 10’s recitation “control parameter predefining
the lighting brightness” repeatedly to distinguish Matthias’s control
parameters. Appeal Br. 6, 7, 8, 9; Reply Br. 3. However, merely reciting the
claim language and asserting that it differs from the prior art disclosure is
insufficient to identify error in the rejection. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an
appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”);
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2021-000953
Application 16/084,115

6
2006) (“[M]ere statements of disagreement . . . as to the existence of factual
disputes do not amount to a developed argument.”); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim.”). Appellant does not direct us to any particular definition of “control
parameter predefining the lighting brightness” or disclosure in Appellant’s
Specification that would preclude Matthias’s parameters. Accordingly,
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant takes issue with the Examiner citing to
the human translation of the Matthias prior art reference; however, Appellant
does not dispute the content of the translation itself. Reply Br. 4–5. Nor does
Appellant dispute the Examiner’s explanation that the human translation was
obtained after Appellant’s representative objected to the clarity of the
machine translation during the interview on March 9, 2020. Ans. 4.
For at least these reasons, the preponderance of the evidence cited in
this Appeal record supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Matthias and Potter. Appellant does not separately argue
the patentability of dependent claims 11–18 (Appeal Br. 10), therefore, these
claims fall with independent claim 10, from which they depend. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Appeal 2021-000953
Application 16/084,115

7
CONCLUSION
For these reasons and those provided in the Final Office Action and
the Examiner’s Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–
18.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–13, 15 103 Matthias, Potter 10–13, 15
14, 16, 17 103 Matthias, Potter, Kobayashi 14, 16, 17
18 103 Matthias, Potter, Takeda 18
Overall
Outcome 10–18

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)(2019).

AFFIRMED