Ex Parte Kolletzki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2013

11229059 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JOHANNES KOLLETZKI
__________

Appeal 2011-007760
Application 11/229,059
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
2-27, directed to a multimedia system and a method of operating it. The
claims have been rejected on the grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party-In-Interest as Harmon Industries
International, Incorporated (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-007760
Application 11/229,059

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses “a vehicle multimedia system, and . . . the
operation of a vehicle multimedia system” (Spec. ¶ 2). The multimedia
system comprises a display displaying icons representing different features
of the multimedia system, and an operating module with a “turn press
button, wherein icons shown on the display are selected by turning the turn
press button, whereas pressing the turn press button changes the value of a
feature of an icon” (see generally ¶¶ 7, 10, 15). According to the
Specification, the turn press button “may help change the setting of the
multimedia system in a simple way, as this single button may be used to
select the icon by turning the button and to confirm the choice and used to
change the value of the icon by pressing the button” (id. at ¶ 15).
Claims 2-27 are pending and on appeal. Claims 2 and 15 are
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
2. A method for operating a multimedia system, the method comprising:
selecting one of a plurality of modes of operation of the multimedia
system, each mode of operation having features available for selection and
editing by a user as corresponding icons;
selecting a feature of the selected mode of operation to edit by
operating a selection device of the multimedia system, the selection device
including a rotatable component and a depressible component;
determining whether the selected feature of the selected mode of
operation is to be edited via rotating the rotatable component or via pressing
the depressible component; and
based on the determining, editing the selected feature of the selected
mode of operation by either rotating the rotatable component or pressing the
depressible component.

15. A multimedia system comprising:
a display adapted to display a plurality of selectable icons representing
features of respective modes of operation of the multimedia system; and
Appeal 2011-007760
Application 11/229,059

3
a selection device including a rotational portion and a depressible
portion adapted to generate selection information associated with selection
of the selectable icons; and
a controller adapted to
receive a first selection of a first feature for editing in response
to operation of the selection device by a user;
determine whether the first feature is to be edited via rotating
the rotational portion or via pressing the depressible portion; and
based on the determination, edit the first feature in response to
either rotating the rotational portion or pressing the depressible
portion of the selection device.
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Nishiyama et al. US 2001/0050693 A1 Dec. 13, 2001
Noguchi et al. US 2002/0171627 A1 Nov. 21, 2002
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 2-6, 12-19, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Noguchi (Ans. 3-9).
Claims 7-11 and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Noguchi and Nishiyama (Ans. 9-13).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Noguchi discloses “an operating device for unifiably operating
an audio and video apparatus and an air-conditioner, and . . . a navigation
device, automobile telephone, electronic mail apparatus and vehicle
information apparatus” (Noguchi ¶ 2), mounted on the dashboard of a
vehicle. The operating device occupies a center console and comprises, in
relevant part, a screen display and a multi-function switch “including a dial
being rotatable . . . and a plurality of switches arranged adjacent to the dial”
(id. at ¶ 11).
2. Figure 2 of Noguchi, reproduced below, depicts the center console
2 of a vehicle dashboard:
Appeal 2011-007760
Application 11/229,059

4

Figure 2 is a front view of the center console 2 of a vehicle, showing
the relative positions of multi-function switch 3 and screen display 4.
3. Figure 3A of Noguchi is reproduced below:

Figure 3A depicts Noguchi’s multi-function switch 3, showing jog
dial 20, vehicle information switch 27, “Enter” switch 31, and “Previous”
switch 32.
Appeal 2011-007760
Application 11/229,059

5
When the user operates the vehicle information switch 27
shown in FIG. 3[A] . . . the screen display device 4 displays
“Trip Meter”, “Calendar”, “Multimeter”, “Clock” and “Display
(Disp.)” which are provided as vehicle information. These
pieces of vehicle information are longitudinally displayed on
the screen [4] as the icons list. A desired item, namely icon, is
selected from the above icons list by operating the dial 20.
(Noguchi ¶ 52.)
4. Figure 10 of Noguchi is reproduced below:

Figure 10 of Noguchi is a flow chart outlining the steps required in
operating the multi-function switch 3 in order to select the clock icon, and
change the displayed time.
Appeal 2011-007760
Application 11/229,059

6
ANTICIPATION
The Examiner finds that Noguchi discloses a method for operating a
multimedia system that meets all the requirements of independent claims 2
and 15. In particular, the Examiner finds, in relevant part, that operation of
jog dial 20 and enter switch 31 of Noguchi’s multi-function switch 3 meets
the claims’ requirements of “determining whether the selected feature of the
selected mode of operation is to be edited via rotating the rotatable
component or via pressing the depressible component” of “the selection
device” and “editing the selected feature of the selected mode of operation
by either rotating the rotatable component or pressing the depressible
component” (Ans. 3-4).
Appellant contends, in relevant part, that independent “claim 2 recites
that the selection device includes a rotatable component and a depressible
component” (App. Br. 18). Appellant acknowledges that claim 2 “does not
exclude additional switches from being part of the selection device or the
user interface of the system,” but contends that “only one depressible
component is used to perform editing of the icons” (id.). Appellant contends
that Noguchi’s “multi-function switch with a dial and two depressible
switches (Enter and Previous switches) to select an item on a display to enter
a function . . . is not a selection device as recited in claim 2 because its
operation requires two switches” (id.). Appellant contends that independent
claim 15 requires the same functionality (id. at 20).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. While the plain language of
claim 2 (“the selection device including a rotatable component and a
depressible component”) ostensibly encompasses a selection device like
Noguchi’s multi-function switch, which has a rotatable component and two
Appeal 2011-007760
Application 11/229,059

7
depressible components, the claim requires the switch to function in a
manner that Noguchi’s multi-function switch does not (see FFs 3, 4). That
is, claim 2 requires that the same depressible component that operates to
select an icon for subsequent editing (e.g., after the rotatable component has
been used to highlight an icon), also operates to edit an icon under certain
circumstances (e.g., the depressible component may operate as a toggle
switch when the icon has only two possible options associated with it) (see
e.g., Spec. ¶ 10). The multimedia system of claim 15 has the same
requirement. See In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)
(“[C]ombining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
teachings of the cited reference ... may be entirely proper in the making of a
103, obviousness rejection ... but it has no place in the making of a 102,
anticipation rejection.”)
OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 7-11 and 20-24 stand rejected as unpatentable over Noguchi
and Nishiyama.
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s finding that
Noguchi meets all the limitations of independent claims 2 and 15, and
Nishiyama does not remedy the underlying deficiencies of Noguchi.
Accordingly, we will reverse this rejection as well.

SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 2-6, 12-19, and 25-27 as anticipated by
Noguchi is reversed.

Appeal 2011-007760
Application 11/229,059

8
The rejection of claims 7-11 and 20-24 as unpatentable over Noguchi
and Nishiyama is reversed.
REVERSED

lp