Ex Parte Itoh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

10598110 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MEGUMI ITOH, TOSHIYA TAKAHASHI,
MITSUKAZU OKUDA, TAKESHI YAMAMOTO, AKI MIAKE,
and TAKESHI DOI1
________________

Appeal 2011-003802
Application 10/598,110
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-003802
Application 10/598,110

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 22–41. Claims 1–21 and 42 are canceled. App. Br. 4.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants invented an instrument panel image display device, an
instrument panel image changing method, a vehicle, a server, an instrument
panel image changing system, an instrument panel image display program,
and a computer-readable storage medium storing the instrument panel image
display program, whereby it is possible to change a displayed instrument
panel image into another instrument panel image See Spec. 1, ll. 9–16.
Exemplary Claims (emphases added)
22. An instrument panel image display device, installed on an
apparatus so as to display an instrument panel image, said
instrument panel image display device comprising:
a display arranged to display the instrument panel image
including a plurality of gauge images, by which internal and
external information of the apparatus is provided to a user, said
instrument panel image being displayed in accordance with a
plurality of image data which generates the plurality of gauge
images, wherein each of said plurality of image data
individually generates one of said plurality of gauge images;
and
an image data changing section arranged to change one
of said plurality of image data into another image data, said
another image data generating another gauge image.
Appeal 2011-003802
Application 10/598,110

3
30. An instrument panel image display device, installed on an
apparatus so as to display an instrument panel image, said
instrument panel image display device comprising:
a display arranged to display the instrument panel image
including a gauge image, by which internal and external
information is provided to a user, and a background image,
which serves as a background of the gauge image, in
accordance with image data that generates said gauge image
and image data that generates the background image; and
an image data changing section arranged to change said
image data which generates said background image into
another image data, said another image data generating
another background image.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 22, 23, 27–29, 36–39, and 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yahara (JP 10-297318 A; Nov.
10, 1998). Ans. 3–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 24–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yahara and Hirasuna (JP 11-099852 A; Apr. 13, 1999).
Ans. 9.
The Examiner rejects claims 30–32, 34, 35, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yahara, Kolpasky (U.S. 7,474,309 B2;
Jan. 6, 2009; filed Dec. 16, 2003), and Ui (JP 2000-292198 A; Oct. 20,
2000). Ans. 10–14.
The Examiner rejects claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yahara, Kolpasky, Ui, and Hirasuna. Ans. 14–15.

Appeal 2011-003802
Application 10/598,110

4
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Yahara discloses: (1) an
“instrument panel image being displayed in accordance with a plurality of
image data which generates the plurality of gauge images, wherein each of
said plurality of image data individually generates one of said plurality of
gauge images” and (2) “an image data changing section arranged to change
one of said plurality of image data into another image data, said another
image data generating another gauge image,” as recited in claim 22?
2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Yahara,
Kolpasky, and Ui teaches or suggests: (1) “a display arranged to display . . .
a background image, which serves as a background of the gauge image, in
accordance with . . . image data that generates the background image” and
(2) “an image data changing section arranged to change said image data
which generates said background image into another image data, said
another image data generating another background image,” as recited in
claim 30?
ANALYSIS
Claims 22–29, 38, 39, and 41
Yahara discloses an instrument panel meter PC 22 that chooses or
creates image data of a screen displayed on HUD (heads-up display) 24, and
outputs the image data S22B to the HUD 24 so that HUD 24 can display the
image accordingly. See Yahara ¶ [0018]. Based on this disclosure, the
Examiner finds that “the HUD image includes gauge images . . . and because
each piece of information that is displayed is generated by a different
component of the card, each piece of information is separately supplied and
generates an image corresponding to the data it represents.” Ans. 4 (citing
Appeal 2011-003802
Application 10/598,110

5
Yahara, ¶¶ [0018] and [0020]–[0022]). Thus, the Examiner finds that Yahara
discloses an “instrument panel image being displayed in accordance with a
plurality of image data which generates the plurality of gauge images,
wherein each of said plurality of image data individually generates one of
said plurality of gauge images,” as recited in claim 22. See Ans. 4 and 15–
16.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because in Yahara “the image
data indicating an entire HUD image including individual gauge images is
prepared in advance as a single data element.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue
that Yahara’s HUD “is clearly not generated by use of a plurality of
individually provided data each being separately displayed as independent
gauge images on the HUD.” Id. at 5–6; see also App. Br. 12–14. In other
words, Appellants argue that the gauge images that Yahara’s HUD
generates, and the image displayed, are in accordance with image data,
singular, instead of in accordance with a plurality of image data.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. The Specification discloses the display of an
instrument panel image “in accordance with image data which codes the
gauge-like image.” Spec. 4, ll. 21–22 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Spec.
5, ll. 11–12. In Yahara, HUD 24 displays rate meter and information about a
pushed steering switch according to image data S22b. See Yahara, ¶ [0020].
Thus, the image data S22b is made up of a plurality of image data (i.e.,
image data for the rate meter and image data for the steering switch). That is,
the image data for the rate meter and the image data for the steering switch
respectively code rate meter and steering switch gauge images. Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner, see Ans. 4 and 15–16, that Yahara discloses
Appeal 2011-003802
Application 10/598,110

6
“instrument panel image being displayed in accordance with a plurality of
image data which generates the plurality of gauge images, wherein each of
said plurality of image data individually generates one of said plurality of
gauge images,” as recited in claim 22.
The Examiner further finds that Yahara discloses depicting interactive
behavior using HUD 24, such that an arrow, when activated, changes
appearance. See Ans. 4 (citing Yahara, ¶ [0024] and fig. 10). The Examiner
finds that this change in appearance discloses “an image data changing
section arranged to change one of said plurality of image data into another
image data, said another image data generating another gauge image,” as
recited in claim 22. See Ans. 4. Appellants contend the Examiner erred
because Yahara merely discloses “that one piece of HUD image data is
replaced with one piece of HUD image data. However, none of the HUD
image data of Yahara et al. is changed in this operation.” App. Br. 14; see
also Reply Br. 6–7. However, we agree with the Examiner that if the image
being displayed is changed, the data used to generate the displayed image
(e.g., the portion of image data S22b representing an activated arrow)
inherently must be changed. See Ans. 16. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner, see Ans. 4, that Yahara discloses “an image data changing section
arranged to change one of said plurality of image data into another image
data, said another image data generating another gauge image,” as recited in
claim 22.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 22, and the rejections of claims 23–29, 38, 39, and 41, which are
not argued separately. See App. Br. 11.
Appeal 2011-003802
Application 10/598,110

7
Claims 30–37 and 40
While the Examiner finds that Yahara teaches most of the recitations
of claim 30, the Examiner further relies on Kolpasky and Ui to teach or
suggest image data that includes background image data. See Ans. 10–11. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Kolpasky teaches or suggests background
image data that can be changed, and could be in a variety of colors, while Ui
teaches or suggests making display changes based on whether it is day or
night. See Ans. 11 (citing Kolpasky, col. 4, ll. 41–42 and 52–57, and Ui,
¶ [0020] and fig. 4).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Kolpasky and Ui
individually do not teach particular features of claim 30. See App. Br. 19–
20. However, Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s
rejection, which is based on the combined teachings and suggestions of
Yahara, Kolpasky, and Ui. See Ans. 10–11.
For example, Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “[t]here
is no teaching or suggestion anywhere in Kolpasky et al. of changing the
background 74.” App. Br. 19. However, the Examiner relies on Ui, not
Kolpasky, as teaching or suggesting changing the background (e.g., to make
the display screen darker at night). See Ans. 11. Appellants also contend that
“Ui merely teaches changing the color spectrum of a display depending on
whether it is day or night. Ui does not teach the image data associated with a
background image is replaced with different image data.” App. Br. 20.
However, the Examiner relies on Yahara and Kolpasky to teach or suggest
changing a generated and displayed image (such as a background image) by
changing the data for that image. See Ans. 10–11. Moreover, in Ui the color
spectrum of a display is part of the image data for that display since
Appeal 2011-003802
Application 10/598,110

8
changing the color spectrum changes how the image, including its
background, is displayed. See Ui ¶ [0020]. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner, Ans. 10–11, that the combination of Yahara, Kolpasky, and Ui
teaches or suggests: (1) “a display arranged to display . . . a background
image, which serves as a background of the gauge image, in accordance with
. . . image data that generates the background image” and (2) “an image data
changing section arranged to change said image data which generates said
background image into another image data, said another image data
generating another background image,” as recited in claim 30.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 30, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 31–37 and 40,
which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22–41.
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

msc