Ex Parte Prasad et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 201613606123 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/606, 123 09/07/2012 28395 7590 08/24/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Krishnaswamy Venkatesh Prasad 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. 83239245 4593 EXAMINER HOFSASS, JEFFERY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KRISHNASWAMY VENKATESH PRASAD and CHRISTOPHER PEPLIN Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606,123 1 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC (App. Br. 4). Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION The claims are directed to heads up display (HUD) system which uses a wireless transceiver to transmit information from a device to a display. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A heads up display apparatus, comprising: a wireless transceiver configured to connect and communicate with a device providing information for display; an energy storage device configured to provide energy to the display apparatus; a processor configured to communicate information to output on the display apparatus from the transceiver and configure the information for display; and a display configured to output the information in a heads up manner such that a driver can view the information without looking away from the road. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hori et al. Bobbin et al. Wang us 5,072,209 US 2008/0169788 Al US 2008/0249712 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Dec. 10, 1991 July 17, 2008 Oct. 9, 2008 Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wang (Final Act. 2-3). 2 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 Claims 1--4 and 6-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hori and Wang (id. at 3-5). Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hori, Wang, and Bobbin (id. at 6). ISSUE 1 Did the Examiner err in finding Wang discloses "an application program interface to communicate with a device," as recited in claim 12? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2---6) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3---6). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wang discloses "an application program interface to communicate with a device," as recited in claim 12 (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2). Specifically, Appellants argue "the Examiner has failed to show where Wang discloses an 'application program interface"' (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds Wang teaches a device, that includes, e.g., first housing 1, including a central processing unit (CPU) 111 which transmits data for display with a HUD, i.e., second housing 2, including a micro control unit 132 (Ans. 4 (citing Wang i141)). The 3 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 Examiner further finds that "[i]t is notoriously well[-]known that computer processing units communicating with other computer processing units would have a program interface" (id.). Appellants' arguments, that "an application program interface is not disclosed in either Wang's CPU 111 or micro control unit 132" (Reply Br. 2; see App. Br. 6), do not persuasively address the Examiner's finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known communications between computing devices would include an application programming interface (Ans. 4; see also Spec. i-f 25). As Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's finding, it follows, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Wang discloses "an application program interface to communicate with a device," as recited in claim 12. ISSUE 2 Issue 2 a: Did the Examiner err in finding Wang teaches "a transceiver to receive and send information from a vehicle-device related to the information to be output on the HUD," as recited in claim 18? Issue 2b: Did the Examiner err in finding Wang teaches "a wireless transceiver configured to connect and communicate with a device providing information for display," as recited in claim 1 and "a transceiver," as recited in claim 12? ANALYSIS Issue 2a Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests "a transceiver to receive and send information from a vehicle- 4 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 device related to the information to be output on the HUD," as recited in claim 18 (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2). Specifically, Appellants argue the "Examiner fails to cite where either reference discloses any type of two-way communication as related to the information to be output on the HUD" (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Hori teaches a HUD system in which a receiver displays information received from a transmitter (Final Act. 4 (citing Hori, Figs. 4, 6); see Hori 3:42--45). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Wang teaches a HUD that includes, e.g., second housing 2, which displays navigation information received from a device, i.e., first housing 1, using Bluetooth transceivers (Ans. 4 (citing Wang i-f 41); Final Act. 3 (citing Wang Figs. 6A-7)). Wang's Bluetooth transceivers provide bi-directional communication between its first housing 1 and second housing 2; as shown in Figures 6A and 6B, the Bluetooth wireless communication modules of Wang's first housing 1 and second housing 2 indicate communications using a bi-directional communication arrow. The Examiner concludes that providing two-way communication between Rori's receiver and transmitter results in "a more versatile system" (Final Act. 3). Although Appellants argue Wang does not teach two-way communication, Wang's transceivers provide bi-directional communication between its devices, as indicated by the transceivers' bi-directional communication arrows (see Wang Figs. 6A---6B). Furthermore, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that it would not have been obvious to incorporate Wang's bi-directional transceivers into Rori's HUD system because the Examiner's reasoning to include two-way communication 5 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 between Hori' s transmitter and receiver is supported by rational underpinning- increasing HUD system versatility (Final Act. 4). Additionally, Appellants argue "Wang's Bluetooth transceiver does not communicate information to be output on the display as the claims require." (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3). The claim, however, does not require the information to be output on the display, as argued by Appellants; rather, claim 18 merely requires the information received and sent be related to the information to be output to the HUD. Furthermore, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wang's first housing 1 includes a CPU 111 which transmits navigation information through a connected Bluetooth transceiver to be displayed by the second housing 2 HUD (Ans. 4 (citing Wang i-f 41); Final Act. 3 (citing Wang, Figs. 6A-7)). We further note Appellants' own Specification describes the HUD may connect via a Bluetooth connection to the device (Spec. i-f 26), Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hori and Wang teaches "a transceiver to receive and send information from a vehicle-device related to the information to be output on the HUD," as recited in claim 18. Issue 2b Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests "a wireless transceiver configured to connect and communicate with a device providing information for display," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2). Specifically, Appellants argue the "Examiner fails to cite where either reference discloses any type of two-way communication as 6 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 related to the information to be output on the HUD" (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded. As set forth above with respect to claim 18, Wang teaches two-way communications. Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Neither claim 1 nor claim 12 recites and, therefore, requires, both receiving and sending information; rather, claims 1 and 12 recite only communicating with a device. While Appellants argue the Specification requires communication between the HUD and transceiver to be two-way communication (App. Br. 7-8), as discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wang's Bluetooth transceivers communicate information from a device to a HUD and vice versa (Ans. 4 (citing Wang i-f 41); Final Act. 3 (citing Wang Figs. 6A-7)). Moreover, Appellants have not shown the term "transceiver" or the terms "connect and communicate" are defined explicitly in the Specification to require specific information be communicated. Indeed, the Specification teaches the "HUD may also request data 303 from the device in order to output information on the display" (Spec. i-f 27 (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests "a wireless transceiver configured to connect and communicate with a device providing information for display," as recited in claim 1. ISSUE 3 Issue 3: Did the Examiner err by improperly combining Hori and Wang? 7 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Hori and Wang in rejecting claims 1 and 18 (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3). Specifically, Appellants argue "the Examiner has not articulated a reason why the claimed invention would have been obvious and has changed the principle of operation of the prior art being modified" (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Hori teaches a HUD system in which a HUD displays information received from a transmitter (Final Act. 4 (citing Hori, Figs. 4, 6); see also Hori 3:41--47). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Wang teaches a HUD system in which a HUD displays information received from a device via a transceiver (Final Act. 4 (citing Wang i-f 41) ). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to use Wang's transceiver to transmit information between Rori's HUD and transmitter to enable two-way communication (Final Act. 4). Appellants' argument, that incorporating Wang's transceiver into Rori's HUD system would frustrate Rori's intended purpose because "on a motorcycle helmet[] there is limited space to attach a separate housing," is supported only by attorney argument (App. Br. 10). As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's use of Wang's transceiver to transmit information between Hori' s HUD and transmitter requires additional space or separate housings. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence."). Moreover, we are not persuaded adding a transceiver would change the principle of operation of Hori. Indeed, Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have 8 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 been unable to combine the teachings and suggestions of Wang and Hori to achieve the intended purpose. The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 414, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Additionally, the Examiner's reasoning forthe combination is supported by rational underpinning - providing a more versatile HUD system (Ans. 4). Furthermore, Appellants have not persuaded us the claimed combination would have changed the principle of operation of the prior art being modified. Indeed, Appellants have not persuaded us incorporating Wang's transceiver into Rori's HUD system would have changed the principle of operation of Hori. Therefore, Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings and conclusion. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined Hori and Wang in rejecting claims 1 and 18. ISSUE 4 Issue 4a: Did the Examiner err in finding Wang teaches or suggests "an application program interface to communicate with a device," as recited in claim 12? Issue 4b: Did the Examiner err in finding Wang teaches or suggests "include an application program interface that allows for a software update of the heads up display," as recited in claim 6? 9 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 ANALYSIS Issue 4a Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests "an application program interface to communicate with a device," as recited in claim 12 (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2). Specifically, Appellants argue "the Examiner does not even attempt to show where [an application program interface] is disclosed by either Hori or Wang" (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, Appellants' arguments (see Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 8) do not persuasively address the Examiner's finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known communication between computing devices would have used an application programming interface (Ans. 3--4 (citing Wang i-f 41)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests "an application program interface to communicate with a device," as recited in claim 12. Issue 4b Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests an "application program interface allows for a software update of the heads up display," as recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2). Specifically, Appellants argue "Wang discloses that the navigation software or navigation map may be updated," but does not disclose that an application program interface does so (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded. Claim 6 broadly recites the HUD includes an application programming interface that "allows" for a software update, but does not require that the application programming interface update the 10 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 software. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wang's HUD system uses an application programming interface to communicate information between computing devices (see Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 8) and Appellants' arguments do not persuasively address those findings (Ans. 3--4 (citing Wang i-f 41)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests an "application program interface allows for a software update of the heads up display," as recited in claim 6. ISSUE 5 Issue 5: Did the Examiner err by finding Wang teaches "wherein the device is a vehicle computer system," as recited in claim 8? ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests "wherein the device is a vehicle computer system," as recited in claim 8 (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3). Specifically, Appellants argue Wang teaches its device is a portable navigation device (Reply Br. 3 (citing Wang i-f 29) ), but a "portable navigation device, or any of its components, is not a vehicle computer system as read in the context of the claims and [S]pecification" (App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. i-f 26); Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. ,-r 18)). Initially, we note that the term "vehicle computer system" is not defined explicitly in the claim or by the Specification. The Specification provides examples of vehicle systems and "nomadic devices," but does not define explicitly "vehicle computer system" (Spec. i-fi-1 18, 26). In particular, 11 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 the Specification teaches a HUD "interact[s] with a nomadic device or vehicle computer system," but the Specification does not clearly teach that a nomadic device, e.g., a portable navigation device, cannot be a vehicle computer system (id. i-f 26). Indeed, it is unclear from the Specification whether the terms "nomadic device" and "vehicle computer system" are being used interchangeably. Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a vehicle computer system may encompass a portable navigation device. The Examiner finds Wang teaches a device, e.g., first housing 1, with a CPU 111 that provides vehicle information from a vehicle navigation module to a vehicle HUD (see Ans. 4--5 (citing Wang i-f 41); see also Final Act. 3 (citing Wang i-fi-130, 33)). We agree with the Examiner that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, Wang's device teaches a vehicle computer system. Indeed, Wang's device includes a computer processor which provides "mobile information of the vehicle" including "longitude and latitude, height, driving direction and speed" (Wang i-f 30). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches or suggests "wherein the device is a vehicle computer system," within the meaning of claim 8. ISSUE 6 Issue 6a: Did the Examiner err in finding Bobbin teaches "send[ing] a message indicating a low-energy supply of the display apparatus to the device when the energy storage device is below a threshold amount of energy," as recited in claim 5? 12 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 Issue 6b: Did the Examiner improperly combine Hori, Wang, and Bobbin in rejecting claim 5? ANALYSIS Issue 6a Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Bobbin teaches "send[ing] a message indicating a low-energy supply of the display apparatus to the device when the energy storage device is below a threshold amount of energy," as recited in claim 5 (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4). Specifically, Appellants argue Bobbin's low-battery indicator "is utilized to indicate a low-energy supply of the battery pack that is associated with a cap lamp, not a 'low-energy supply of the display apparatus"' (App. Br. 11-12 (citing Bobbin i-f 6); Reply Br. 4). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Hori teaches a helmet with a battery-powered HUD (Final Act. 4 (citing Hori, Figs. 4, 6). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Bobbin teaches a helmet with a low-battery indicator (Final Act. 6 (citing Bobbin i-fi-1 4, 6)). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to incorporate Bobbin's low-battery indicator into Rori's battery-powered HUD to indicate when Rori's HUD is in a low-battery state (Final Act. 6; Ans. 5-6). Appellants' arguments against Bobbin individually are not persuasive because the Examiner's rejection is based on the combination of Hori and Bobbin. Hori teaches a battery-powered HUD (Hori 3:47--49), and the Examiner's combination incorporates Bobbin's low-battery indicator into Hori to indicate when Hori' s HUD is low on battery (Final Act. 6; Ans. 5- 6). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hori, Wang, and Bobbin teaches or suggests "send[ing] a 13 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 message indicating a low-energy supply of the display apparatus to the device when the energy storage device is below a threshold amount of energy," as recited in claim 5. Issue 6b Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 over Hori, Wang, and Bobbin is improper because Bobbin is non-analogous art (App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 4--5). Specifically, Appellants argue "Bobbin and the device of claim 5 are not directed to the same field of endeavor" because Bobbin's "battery pack for a mining helmet is not related to the same field of endeavor as a vehicle head[s] up display" (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4--5). We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Bobbin teaches an indicator that displays the charge of the battery (Final Act. 6 (citing Bobbin i-fi-1 4, 6); Ans. 6). We further agree with the Examiner that any battery operated device would find a battery level indicator to indicate "when the batteries need[] charging" analogous art (Final Act. 6; Ans. 6). Indeed, we are unpersuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found art directed to a battery and displaying its charge, non-analogous for a device having a battery. The Examiner has identified a problem - showing the charge of the battery- so one would know when batteries need changing (Final Act. 6). We find this is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved - providing a battery-operated wireless heads up display apparatus for a driver. Thus, we are not persuaded the references are non- analogous art. It follows, we agree with the Examiner that Bobbin is 14 Appeal2015-003424 Application 13/606, 123 analogous art. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 over Hori, Wang, and Bobbin. Remaining Claims 2--4, 7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 Dependent claims 2--4, 7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are not separately argued by Appellants and thus these claims fall with their respective independent claims (see App. Br. 6-14). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2--4, 7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hori and Wang. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wang is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hori and Wang is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hori, Wang, and Bobbin 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)(l )(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation