Ex Parte Pfaffinger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2013

10476169 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2013)

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.
10/476,169 04/09/2004 Gerhard Pfaffinger Harman.7295 6839
50811 7590 08/08/2013
O''Shea Getz P.C.
1500 MAIN ST. SUITE 912
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115
EXAMINER
SUTHERS, DOUGLAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2013 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 GERHARD PFAFFINGER1
__________

Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, ERIC GRIMES, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims relating to
an audio system for a motor vehicle, which have been rejected for
obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Harman Becker
Automotive Systems GmbH (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 2, and 6-17 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative
and read as follows:
1. A circuit for audio playback and hands-free operation in a motor
vehicle, comprising:
a radio receiver unit that provides an audio playback signal onto a
common data bus;
a telephony unit that provides a telephony control signal onto the
common data bus and a received telephony audio signal onto the common
data bus;
a program memory that stores an audio playback control routine and a
hands-free telephony control routine; and
a processing unit that receives the telephony control signal, the
received telephony audio signal and the audio playback signal via the
common data bus, and selectively executes either the audio playback control
routine or the hands-free telephony control routine based upon the
telephony control signal, and provides an audio output signal,
where the telephony unit and the radio receiver are connected to the
processing unit via the common data bus.

15. A controller for an integrated audio/communication system for use
in a motor vehicle that receives an audio signal from an audio source, and a
telephony audio signal and a telephony control signal from a wireless
telephone unit, the controller comprising:
a bus interface that receives (i) the telephony control signal, (ii) the
audio signal and (iii) the telephony audio signal via a bus interface;
a memory device that stores an audio playback control routine and a
telephony control routine; and
a processor that receives the telephony control signal, and selectively
executes one of the audio playback control routine and the telephony control
routine based upon the state of the telephony control signal, and provides an
output signal indicative of a selected one of the audio signal or the telephony
audio signal.
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

3
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious based on Albus,2 Becker,3 and Chen4 (Answer 35). The
Examiner has also rejected claims 2 and 14 as obvious based on Albus,
Becker, Chen, and Fricke6 (Answer 10). We will consider the rejections
together since Appellant has waived any arguments based on Fricke (see
Appeal Br. 14).
The Examiner finds that Albus discloses a system that includes or
would have suggested most of the limitations of claim 1 (Answer 4) but does
not disclose executing routines in an either/or manner and does not disclose
that control and audio data are transmitted via the same bus (id. at 5). The
Examiner finds that Becker and Chen disclose these limitations and
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to incorporate them into Albus’ system (id.).
Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to combine
Chen and Albus because Chen’s system includes an electronic switch that is
configured as a central node in a star shaped network, whereas Albus
discloses an audio data bus in the form of a ring structure, which is
functionally incompatible with a switch designed for a star shaped network

2 Albus et al., US 6,862,357 B1, issued Mar. 1, 2005.
3 Becker, US 6,157,725, issued Dec. 5, 2000.
4 Chen, US 6,349,223 B1, issued Feb. 19, 2002.
5 The Examiner did not include claims 8 and 9 in the statement of the
rejection, but addressed these claims in the body of the rejection (Answer 6).
We therefore understand the omission of claims 8 and 9 from the statement
of the rejection to be a typographical error. Appellant understood this
ground of rejection to apply to claims 8 and 9 (Appeal Br. 8).
6 Fricke et al., US 4,061,874, issued Dec. 6, 1977.
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

4
(Appeal Br. 9-10). Appellant also contends that it would not have been
obvious to combine Chen with Albus and Becker because “Albus and
Becker relate to motor vehicle audio systems whose components are
connected via a bus. Chen, on the other hand, is directed to an aftermarket
product that DOES NOT operate with a bus of a motor vehicle.” (Id. at 11.)
The issue presented is: Does the evidence support the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to include Chen’s teaching of
“running in one of an audio playback mode or a telephone control mode in
response to a telephony control signal” in Albus’ system?
Findings of Fact
1. The Examiner finds that Albus discloses a circuit that includes
most of the limitations of claim 1 (Answer 4). Appellant does not dispute
this finding.
2. The Examiner finds that “[a]lthough Albus does not expressly
disclose the use of memory or routines, the necessity to use such with CPUs
was well known in the art. The motivation to use such would have been to
allow for storage of the needed instructions to perform the tasks as
described.” (Answer 4.)
3. The Examiner finds that “Becker teaches wherein both audio data
and control data are delivered via a common bus (column 1 lines 50-64)”
(id. at 5).
4. Becker discloses “a sound system for a motor vehicle, comprising
. . . a unit for generating source data in the form of audio data; . . . and a bus
system assuring transmission among the individual units of the source data
and control data for controlling the units” (Becker, col. 1, ll. 50-56).
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

5
5. The Examiner finds that “Chen teaches running in one of an audio
playback mode or a telephone control mode in response to a telephony
control signal (column 2 lines 33-42, figures 3-5)” (Answer 5).
6. Chen discloses “a universal hand-free system in combination with
a vehicle’s audio stereo system for use with various types of cellular
phones. . . . [I]ncoming signals of a cellular phone can be automatically
converted and output via speakers of a vehicle’s audio stereo system.”
(Chen, col. 1, ll. 55-61.)
7. Chen’s system includes
electronic switch 21 [that] is activated by the acoustic source
control CPU 24 to control the acoustic source of speakers. . . . It
can automatically turn off the vehicle’s audio stereo system 4
when said cellular phone 5 is in an operational or receiving
state and can automatically turn on the audio stereo system 4
upon the cellular phone 5 being cut off.
(Id. at col. 2, ll. 33-41.)
Analysis
Appellant does not dispute that Albus discloses a system that includes
the limitations found by the Examiner (Answer 4; Appeal Br. 8). Appellant
also does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the use of memory and
routines was known to be necessary with CPUs, or the conclusion that using
them in Albus’ system would have been obvious “to allow for storage of the
needed instructions to perform the tasks as described” (Answer 4).
The Examiner also finds that Becker discloses delivery of audio data
and control data via a common bus, and concludes that it would have been
obvious to use Albus’ bus in the manner taught by Becker in order to
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

6
minimize the number of buses needed (Answer 5). Appellant does not
dispute this finding or conclusion.
Finally, the Examiner finds that Chen discloses running an audio
system in either audio playback mode or telephone mode based on a
telephony control signal. The evidence supports this finding. Chen
discloses that its system allows the cell phone signal to be automatically
output through the vehicle’s speakers (FF 6), and that electronic switch 21
automatically turns off the vehicle’s stereo system when the cell phone is in
use (FF 7). We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to modify Albus’ system to include Chen’s feature of
switching from audio playback mode to telephone mode in response to a
telephony control signal in order to clearly hear the telephone conversation.
Appellant argues, however, that Chen’s system uses a star-shaped
network with electronic node 21 configured as a central node to provide the
function of switching an input signal between a vehicle audio source and a
cellular phone (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant argues that “Albus, on the other
hand, discloses a vehicle audio system that includes an audio data bus 11 in
the form of a ring structure” that connects the components of the audio
system (id.). Appellant argues that providing Albus’ system with the means
for switching in an either/or manner between signals from different sources
would require including electronic switch 21 in that system, but “[n]one of
the cited references . . . teaches or suggests how such an electronic switch
21, which is designed to be a center node in a star shaped network, could be
functionally configured into the ring bus structure 11 of Albus” (id. at 9-10).
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

7
This argument is not persuasive. Albus’ Figure 1 is reproduced
below:

Figure 1 shows a schematic block diagram of Albus’ vehicle audio
system (Albus, col. 2, ll. 54-55). Albus states that the system “contains an
audio data bus 11 in a ring structure (e.g., in the form of a MOST ring bus),
which is used to connect an audio central unit 12, an audio gateway unit 13,
a car telephone unit 14 and a voice control system unit 15 to one another”
(id. at col. 2, ll. 62-65).
Albus states that “the audio gateway unit 13 forms the gateway
interface between the audio data bus 11 and a further data bus 16 in the
vehicle . . . which is used to connect the audio system to the rest of the
‘vehicle environment’” (id. at col. 3, ll. 9-13). The audio gateway unit can
also contain other sets of functions (id. at col. 3, ll. 26-29), including
“applications for starting up and stopping the telematics components
contained in the audio system” (id. at col. 3, ll. 48-50).
Thus, just as with Chen’s “hands-free unit 2” (Chen, col. 2, l. 27; Fig.
2), Albus’ audio gateway unit receives signals from a vehicle audio source
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

8
(Albus, Fig. 1, element 12; Chen, Fig. 2, element 4) and a telephone (Albus,
Fig. 1, element 14; Chen, Fig. 2, element 5) and outputs one of the signals to
speakers. Albus expressly states that its audio gateway unit can contain
applications for starting and stopping the components of the audio system,
and Appellant has not provided evidence or sound technical reasoning to
show that Chen’s acoustic source control CPU 24 and electronic switch 21
would not be compatible with carrying out that function in Albus’ system.
Appellant also argues that it would not have been obvious to combine
Chen with Albus and Becker because “Albus and Becker relate to motor
vehicle audio systems whose components are connected via a bus. Chen, on
the other hand, is directed to an aftermarket product that DOES NOT operate
with a bus of a motor vehicle.” (Appeal Br. 11.) Appellant argues that the
“cable 3 and the hand-free unit 2 [of Chen] are after-market components
made to work with the existing vehicle audio source 4, and, as such, the
cable 3 of Chen is not disclosed or suggested to form a bus interface
with the connection between the vehicle audio source 4 and the hand-
free unit 2” (id. at 12).
This argument is also unpersuasive. As the Examiner noted, “the test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (Answer 12.) Here, Albus
discloses a system that includes an audio gateway unit with applications for
starting and stopping the components of the audio system, and Chen
discloses an electronic switch that is activated to automatically turn off the
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

9
vehicle’s stereo system when a cell phone is in use. As the Examiner
concluded, incorporating Chen’s feature in Albus’ system – which includes
bus 11 – would have been obvious, and Appellant has not shown any error in
that conclusion.
With regard to claim 15, Appellant argues that this claim recites a
controller that “includes ‘a bus interface that receives (i) the telephony
control signal, (ii) the audio signal and (iii) the telephony audio signal via a
bus interface .... ’” (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant argues that “Albus teaches
that the audio gateway unit 13 . . . includes an interface such that data can be
communicated between the two different data buses 11 and 16,” because
those buses function according to different standards (id.), but does not teach
including such an interface between the units 12-15 because
these units 12-15 already communicate using the same MOST
standard. Signals provided by the audio central unit 12, the car
telephone unit 14 and the voice control system 15 to the audio
gateway unit 13 for reproduction via the shared loudspeaker
output stage therefore are not received by the interface of the
audio gateway unit 13.
(Id. at 13-14.)
In this case, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown
that this limitation would have been obvious based on the cited references.
The Examiner points to Albus’ bus 11 as the bus that provides the telephony
control, telephony audio, and audio signals (Answer 8) but does not identify
a second bus interface that receives those signals via a bus interface (such as
bus 11), as recited in claim 15. In responding to Appellant’s argument on
this point, the Examiner again points to Albus’ bus 11 (id. at 12-13), but
does not identify a bus that receives the signals from bus 11.
Appeal 2011-005193
Application 10/476,169

10
Because the Examiner has not shown that the cited references would
have made obvious a controller meeting all the limitations of claim 15, we
reverse the rejection of that claim.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious to include Chen’s teaching of “running in one of an audio
playback mode or a telephone control mode in response to a telephony
control signal” in Albus’ system.
Claims 6-13, 16, and 17 have not been argued separately and therefore
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6-13, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Albus, Becker, and Chen. We also affirm the rejection of
claims 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Albus, Becker, Chen,
and Fricke.
We reverse the rejection of claim 15.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc