Ex Parte Avery

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2015

12386345 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2015)

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.
12/386,345 04/08/2009 John Avery 11123.1061US 2157
52558 7590 06/26/2015
PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM
COMPANY OF AMERICA
776 HWY 74 SOUTH
c/o Panasonic Legal
PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269
EXAMINER
LEGGETT, ANDREA C.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte JOHN AVERY
____________

Appeal 2012-012450
Application 12/386,345
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-012450
Application 12/386,345

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “apparatuses and methods
for controlling portable computing devices” (Spec. ¶ 1).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A control arrangement for a vehicle, comprising:
an infotainment console including a first user interface;
and
a wireless communication device communicatively
coupled to the infotainment console and adapted to relay
wireless signals between the infotainment console and a
portable computing device, wherein the infotainment console is
configured to:
interrogate the portable computing device regarding a
configuration of a second user interface belonging to the
portable computing device;
receive responses to the interrogation from the portable
computing device; and
reconfigure the first user interface to substantially
replicate a layout and functions of the second user interface.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Howard (US 2008/0215240 A1, pub. Sep. 4, 2008).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Howard discloses
an infotainment console configured to interrogate a portable computing
device as claimed (App. Br. 10–11). Particularly, Appellant contends
Howard is “completely silent as to the navigation system responding to an
Appeal 2012-012450
Application 12/386,345

3
interrogation from entertainment system 102 regarding a configuration of a
user interface of the navigation system” (App. Br. 10). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 11–12).
Appellant’s contentions that Howard’s disclosure of a head unit transmitting
navigation service requests and receiving responses from the navigation
system, is not interrogating (App. Br. 10), and that Howard “discloses
nothing regarding interrogating” (App. Br. 11), is not persuasive.
We note anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. U. S. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “An anticipatory
reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims.”
Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc. 953 F.2d 1360, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
Further, as the Examiner finds, Appellant’s Specification does not
define interrogate (Ans. 12). Thus, the Examiner reasonably and correctly
interprets the term interrogate to mean “a request, or to give or send out a
signal” as taught by Howard (Ans. 12).1
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claims 8 and 15, argued for the same reasons as
claim 1 (App. Br. 12–13).

1 This corresponds with the dictionary definition “to give or send out a
signal to (as a transponder) for triggering an appropriate response” Merriam-
Webster’s Dictionary (available at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/interrogate). See also, Microsoft Computer
Dictionary, 285 (5th ed., 2002): Interrogate: “To query with the expectation
of an immediate response.”
Appeal 2012-012450
Application 12/386,345

4
Appellant separately argues claim 2, contending Howard does not
disclose a pushbutton; an “icon is not a pushbutton” (App. Br. 11–12).
Appellant’s Reply Brief states Howard’s paragraphs 43 and 69–70 do not
disclose a touch screen display or a pushbutton (Reply Br. 5–6). We agree
with the Examiner’s reasonable findings that Howard discloses a pushbutton
and a touch screen display (Ans. 13–14; See, e.g., Howard, ¶ 43 (“the
control features of the navigation system will be chosen and activated using
control features of the entertainment system” and “a button press on the
navigation system may be translated to a button press on the entertainment
system”)). Appellant has not rebutted these findings with evidence or
persuasive argument. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 2.
Appellant also separately argues claims 5, 12, 15, and 18 (App. Br.
12–14). However, Appellant merely recites the claim limitation, the section
of Howard relied on by the Examiner, and states the claims are in condition
for allowance, without providing substantive arguments or evidence. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 12, 15, and 18, and the
remaining claims not separately argued.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed.
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

kis