Ex Parte HootonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 2, 201813928749 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/928,749 06/27/2013 80748 7590 05/04/2018 Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joel S. Hooton 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P022371-GMVE-CD 2863 EXAMINER MERCEDES, DISMERY E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2018 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): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOEL S. HOOTON Appeal2017-009687 Application 13/928,749 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is a steering wheel with plural control interfaces coupled to respective device controllers, where each interface (1) displays an image, and (2) controls a distinct group of vehicle devices. See generally Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 1, 10-11. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GM Global Technology Operations LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-009687 Application 13/928,749 1. A steering wheel for a vehicle comprising: a plurality of control interfaces, each of the control interfaces coupled to a respective one of a plurality of device controllers to control operation of a plurality of vehicle devices comprising an active device, each of the control interfaces controlling a distinct group of vehicle devices; each of the control interfaces comprising a display element for visually displaying an interface image associated with the active device; each device controller comprising a processor coupled to a memory storage device; each device controller configured for communicating the interface image to the respective control interface for display by the display element; each control interface comprising a touch-sensitive screen for receiving an operator input and transmitting an input signal indicative of the operator input to the respective device controller; each device controller configured for receiving the input signal from the respective control interface and for transmitting a control signal to the active device in accordance with the input signal. App. Br. 13. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Palalau (US 6,373,472 Bl; issued Apr. 16, 2002) and Schramm (US 2009/0189373 Al; July 30, 2009). Final Act. 2-7. 2 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed October 21, 2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 20, 2017 ("App. 2 Appeal2017-009687 Application 13/928,749 The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Palalau, Schramm, and Newman (US 2012/0109455 Al; published May 3, 2012). Final Act. 7-8. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER P ALALAU AND SCHRAMM The Examiner finds that Palalau discloses, among other things, plural control interfaces with touch-sensitive screens, namely feature group touch screen 36 and center touch screen 34, where each interface controls a distinct group of vehicle devices. Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 3-8. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Palalau does not expressly disclose that each control interface is coupled to a respective controller with a processor coupled to a memory storage device, the Examiner cites Schramm for teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 8-10. Appellant argues that neither Palalau nor Schramm discloses plural control interfaces that each control distinct groups of vehicle devices as claimed. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, Palalau merely discloses a single interface to control various vehicle devices-a single interface that could "overwhelm" the user by requiring a greater degree of switching than the plural interfaces of the claimed invention. App. Br. 10. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed May 18, 2017 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed July 10, 201 7 ("Reply Br."). 3 Appeal2017-009687 Application 13/928,749 ISSUE Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Palalau and Schramm collectively would have taught or suggested plural control interfaces with touch-sensitive screens, where each interface controls a distinct group of vehicle devices? ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the Examiner maps the recited plural control interfaces to Palalau' s feature group touch screen 3 6 and center touch screen 34. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 7 (interpreting these touch screens as control interfaces). As shown in Palalau's Figure 1 reproduced below, steering wheel 26 includes (1) feature group switches 28 inside the wheel's periphery, and (2) center touch screen 32. Palalau, col. 3, 11. 26-43. FfG.1 \ ... / .. ~····· Palalau's Figure 1 with feature group switches and center touch screen 4 Appeal2017-009687 Application 13/928,749 As Palalau explains, the feature group switches include audio group switch 28a, climate group switch 28b, navigation group switch 28c, cruise control switch 28d, cruise control off switch 28e, and configure switch 28f. Palalau, col. 3, 11. 26-35. Notably, the feature group switches can be replaced with a feature group touch screen 36 shown in Palalau's Figure 2b to activate the feature group switches by touching the switches' corresponding graphical representations 36a-f. Palalau, col. 3, 11. 59---66. The center touch screen 32, however, can not only display graphical representations of the feature group switches 28a-f as shown in Palalau's Figure 9a, but also display different feature groups, such as navigation 104a, collision avoidance 104b, diagnostics 104c, cellular phone 104d, and rearview camera 104e, shown in Palalau's Figure 9c. Palalau, col. 6, 11. 35- 50. In this embodiment, then, Palalau's steering wheel uses two touch screens: (1) feature group touch screen 36 that enables the user to control the functions associated with the feature group switches 28a-f, and (2) center touch screen 32 that enables the user to control different functions, including those associated with collision avoidance, vehicle diagnostics, a phone, and a camera. See Palalau Figs. 1, 2b, 9c. Notably, each touch screen is effectively a distinct "control interface" that enables controlling respective groups of vehicle devices. Appellant's contention, then, that Palalau only discloses a single control interface to enable controlling vehicle devices (App. Br. 10) is unavailing, for this argument ignores Palalau's plural control interfaces noted above, namely the feature group touch screen 36 and center touch screen 3 2. 5 Appeal2017-009687 Application 13/928,749 Palalau's functionality also at least suggests that these control interfaces are coupled-at least indirectly-to respective device controllers to perform their respective device control functions. To the extent that Appellant contends that the control interfaces must be coupled directly to their respective device controllers, such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim that recites no such requirement. Accord Mems Tech. Berhad v. Int'! Trade Comm 'n, No. 2010-1018, 2011 WL 2214091 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unpublished), at *6-9 (finding no error in construing the recited term "electrically coupled" as "arranged so that electrical signals may be passed either directly, or indirectly via intervening circuitry, from one component to another") ( emphasis added). Nor do we find error in the Examiner's reliance on Schramm for at least suggesting coupling each control interface to a respective device controller with a processor coupled to a memory storage device. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 8-10 (citing Schramm ,r,r 43--45; Figs. 1-3, 8-11). Notably, Schramm's displays include distinct "virtual control buttons" such that, when touched in their associated areas, cause a change in the display screen that define commands resulting in activating a vehicle function or accessory. See Schramm ,r,r 45, 51-54; Figs 1, 3, 8-11. That these virtual control buttons pertain to respective groups of vehicle devices, such as those for controlling vehicle entertainment, environmental control, and monitoring systems in paragraph 45, only bolsters the Examiner's findings and conclusions in this regard. Appellant's arguments regarding the cited references' individual shortcomings pertaining to each of plural control interfaces coupled to a respective device controller (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on 6 Appeal2017-009687 Application 13/928,749 the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Lastly, even assuming, without deciding, that a user may somehow feel "overwhelmed" by controlling multiple devices with a single control interface by requiring more switching compared to plural interfaces as Appellant contends (App. Br. 1 O}-a contention that is unsubstantiated on this record-Appellant's argument ignores the Examiner's reliance on Palalau's plural control interfaces noted above. In any event, Appellant has not evidenced on this record that providing plural control interfaces coupled to respective device controllers in lieu of a single control interface so coupled would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007); see also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor does Appellant persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that the proposed combination yields a predictable result. Final Act. 4; Ans. 13. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-7 and 10-20 not argued separately with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 9. Final Act. 7-8. Because this rejection is not argued separately with particularity (see App. Br. 11 ), we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons previously discussed. 7 Appeal2017-009687 Application 13/928,749 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under§ 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation