Ex Parte Specks et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 24, 2010

10414361 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILL SPECKS, HEINO WENGELNIK,
and ARNE STOSCHEK
____________

Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 25, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAY P. LUCAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-45. Claims 10 and 14 have been
canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a multifunctional operating element, such as a
knob, push button, or switch, used in the automotive industry to perform
various operating functions. The operating element has an integrated display
that contains a graphic element that can be changed through an operating
function. See generally Spec. 1 and 3-5. Claim 1 is reproduced below with
the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. An operating element, comprising:
at least one integrated, freely programmable display element
arranged on a front of the operating element; and
an arrangement configured to provide at least one operating
function,
wherein the display element is variable in accordance with the
at least one operating function and is configured to display at least
one graphic object, the arrangement configured to change at least one
of a position and a size of the at least one graphic object.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gay US 5,745,122 Apr. 28, 1998
Hartman US 5,821,935 Oct. 13, 1998
Yang US 5,912,537 June 15, 1999
Kekic US 5,999,179 Dec. 7, 1999
Gaston US 6,546,297 B1 Apr. 8, 2003
Kinerk US 2004/0125092 A1 July 1, 2004
(filed Dec. 30, 2002)

Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
1. claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 18-22, 25, 28, 31-41, 44, and 45 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartman and Kinerk. Ans. 3-10.1
2. Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hartman, Kinerk, and Kekic. Ans. 10-11.
3. Claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hartman, Kinerk, and Gay. Ans. 11-12.
4. Claims 26, 27, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hartman, Kinerk, and Gaston. Ans. 12-13.
5. Claims 29, 30, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hartman, Kinerk, and Yang. Ans. 13-14.

CLAIM GROUPING
Although Appellants argue claims 32-41, 44, and 45 separately from
claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 18-22, 25, 28, and 31 (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-5),
the arguments are commensurate with those presented for claims 1-9, 11-13,
15, 18-22, 25, 28, and 31. See App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-5. Accordingly,
we group these claims together and select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 29,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 18, 2008; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed May 29, 2008.
Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

4

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HARTMAN AND KINERK
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 18-22, 25, 28, 31-41, 44, and 45
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hartman
discloses all recited features, except for displaying a variable element on the
front of the operating element. Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on Kinerk to
teach this missing feature and provides an explanation for combining the
references. Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that neither Hartman nor Kinerk teaches a display
element integrated with, and on the front of, the operating element. App. Br.
4-5; Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants also contend that both references have static
display elements and fail to teach the display element that is variable and
freely programmable, or an arrangement configured to change a position or
size of a graphic object as recited in claim 1. Id. Lastly, Appellants argue
that the references teach away from their combination. App. Br. 5-6; Reply
Br. 4-5.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Hartman and Kinerk collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) an integrated, freely-programmable display element that is: (a)
arranged on the front of the operating element and (b) variable; and
(2) an arrangement configured to change at least one of a position and
a size of a graphic object configured to be displayed by the display element?

Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

5

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Hartman discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) system 20
designed to be placed within a vehicle. The GUI 20 includes a display
screen 22 and an electronic controller 24 coupled to subsystems (e.g., radio
system 28, a cruise control system 30, a heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning (HVAC) system 32, and cellular telephone system 34). Col. 2,
l. 60 – col. 3, l. 4; Fig. 1.
2. Hartman’s GUI system 20 includes switches 36 that allow the user
to select a subsystem and switches 38 that allow the user to modify
operations within a selected subsystem. Hartman’s system also includes
multi-purpose adjustment switches 40 and 42, control switch set 44 and 46,
and control switch set 48 and 50. Col. 3, ll. 5-15; Fig. 1.
3. When switch 52 for the radio is activated, Hartman’s electronic
controller 24 displays a radio subsystem 28 with its adjustable functions
(e.g., display 58) on screen 22. The display can be divided into four sub-
screens, each having one or more adjustment switches (e.g., 40’, 42’, 44’,
46’, 48’, and 50’). Col. 3, l. 50 – col. 4, l. 16; Fig. 2.
4. Hartman teaches that switch adjustments made by the user are
visually displayed on the screen 22 (e.g., display portions 63 and 65). Figure
2 shows a display portion 65 (i.e., cross hatching region with Bass and
Treble labels) that indicates the tone, and buttons 48’ and 50’ are a switch
set used with the tone. Figure 2 also shows a display portion below knob
40’ (i.e., cross hatching with Back and Front labels) that indicates the Fade
(e.g., 60), and knob 40’ is used with the fade. Col. 3, ll. 16-30; Fig. 2.

Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

6
5. Hartman discloses different display screens. Figure 2 shows a
radio display screen when switch 52 has been selected. Figure 3 shows a
cruise control display when selecting switch 73. A climate control display is
shown in Figure 4. Col. 2, ll. 46-51 and col. 4, l. 39 – col. 5, l. 44; Figs. 2-4.
6. Hartman discloses an embodiment where the display screen 22 is
mounted on a steering wheel 110. The display screen rotates with the wheel
110 and a wheel position sensor 112 determines the rotated position of the
wheel 110. The electronic controller 24 responsively rotates the display on
the display screen 22 to an upright readable orientation relative to the driver
when the wheel is rotated. Col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6, l. 16; Fig. 6.
7. The Specification provides examples of operating elements,
including a rotary knob, rotary switch, push button, tumble switch, and
rocker switch. Spec. 4:3-7.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, a freely programmable display element arranged on a front of the
operating element. Appellants have provided examples of “operating
elements,” but have not defined the term. See FF 7. We therefore interpret
the limitation “operating element” to include not only knobs or switches, but
also related circuitry responsive to switch activation, as well as associated
structure. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).

Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

7
Hartman discloses a GUI system or operating element 20 designed to
be placed within a vehicle. FF 1. The GUI 20 includes an electronic
controller 24 coupled to subsystems (e.g., 28 and 30) and a display screen 22
having switches (e.g., 36 and 38) and knobs (e.g., 40 and 42) used to select
and adjust the GUI’s operating functions. See FF 1-2. Thus, Hartman’s
display screen or element 22 is integrated with—and located in front of—
other components of operating element 22 within a vehicle. Additionally,
we find that, given the background knowledge possessed by ordinarily
skilled artisans, an artisan would have recognized that the operating
element’s display element 22 would have been located in front of its other
operating element components (e.g., located in front of other GUI
components) so that the display panel 22 is not only visible, but also
accessible to the driver. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). Hartman also discloses an embodiment where the display
element 22 is integrated with and mounted on the front of a steering wheel
110 (i.e., the “operating element”). See FF 6.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that the operating
element in Hartman does not have display elements on the front of the
operating element. App. Br. 4-5. Given the breadth of this claim, we find
that this interpretation of the recited “operating element” is too narrow. As
discussed above, the operating element can include more than the physical
structure of the knob or switches and, therefore, can include a display screen
22 with switches and knobs located on the front of the other operating
element components (e.g., controller 24 and subsystems 28 and 30). See FF
1-2.

Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

8
Additionally, we find that Hartman’s display screen 22 is freely
programmable. Hartman discloses in Figures 2 through 4 different display
screens for different subsystems. FF 5. For example, Figure 2 shows a radio
display appears on screen 22 when the switch 52 has been selected; Figure 3
shows a cruise control display on screen 22 when switch 73 has been
selected; and Figure 4 shows a climate display when the appropriate switch
is selected. See FF 3 and 5. Hartman’s display element, therefore, is freely
programmable and variable.
Also, the electronic controller 24 displays the radio subsystem 28 with
four sub-screens, each having one or more adjustment switches (e.g., 40’ and
42’). FF 3-4. Adjustments made to the switches are displayed on screen 22
and a visual representation (e.g., display portions 63 and 65) of the
adjustment is shown to the user. FF 4. For example, taking into account the
inferences of an ordinarily skilled artisan would employ, we find an artisan
would have recognized that the display portion 65 visually shows the tone
adjustment by increasing or decreasing graphic object to the desired bass or
treble level (e.g., using switches 48’ and 50’). See id; see also KSR, 550
U.S. at 418. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have also recognized that
the display portion visually shows the fade feature (e.g., 60) with an
increasing or decreasing graphic object in the desired back or front direction
(e.g., using knob 40’). See id. We therefore disagree with Appellants that
Hartman fails to disclose a display element (e.g., screen 22) that is variable
according to an operating function (e.g., adjusting the tone or fade in the
radio subsystem) and an arrangement (e.g., the display portion 65) that is
configured to change the size (e.g., become larger or smaller based on
adjustment) of the graphic object (e.g., the bar within display portion 65).
Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

9
Moreover, Figure 6 demonstrates an alternative embodiment having a
display 22 mounted or arranged on the front of the steering wheel 110. FF 6.
When the steering wheel 110 (i.e, “operating element”) rotates or has an
arrangement configured to provide at least one operating function, the
display 22 will be manipulated so that the display remains in an upright
readable position. Id. Thus, Hartman teaches yet another embodiment in
which the display element 22 is variable according to an operating function
(e.g., steering) and is configured to change the position of the graphic
objects (e.g., the display’s contents) when performing the operating function.
Because Hartman teaches all the limitations of claim 1, we find
Kinerk merely cumulative in this regard, and we therefore need not address
Appellants’ arguments regarding Kinerk and its combinability with
Hartman. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 4-5.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-9, 11-13, 15, 18-22, 25, 28,
31-41, 44, and 45, which fall with claim 1.

THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner finds that: (1) Hartman, Kinerk, and Kekic teach all the
limitations in claims 16 and 17 (Ans. 10-11); (2) Hartman, Kinerk, and Gay
teach all the limitations of claims 23 and 24 (Ans. 11-12); (3) Hartman,
Kinerk, and Gaston teach all the limitations of claims 26, 27, and 42 (Ans.
12-13); and (4) Hartman, Kinerk, and Yang teach all the limitations of
claims 29, 30, and 43 (Ans. 13-14). For each of these rejections, Appellants
refer to the previous arguments of claim 1. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 5-7.
Appeal 2009-004966
Application 10/414,361

10
The issues before us, then, are the same as those in connection with claim 1,
and we refer Appellants to our previous discussion.
Additionally, Appellants state Kekic, Gay, Gaston, and Yang do not
cure the deficiencies of Hartman and Kinerk. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 5-7.
We need not address these arguments since we find that Hartman teaches all
the limitations of claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 42, and 43.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-45
under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-45 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004