Ex parte Takekawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 1999

08414112 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 1999)

Application for patent filed March 31, 1995, entitled1
"Mobile Telephone Equipment With Head-Up Display," which
claims the foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C.
§ 119 of Japanese Application 6-099792, filed May 13, 1994.
- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte YASUHISA TAKEKAWA

Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,1121

ON BRIEF

Before THOMAS, KRASS, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
- 2 -
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1-7.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to mobile telephone equipment
with a head-up display and including a transparent touch
panel.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A mobile telephone equipment for use in an
automobile having a front windshield, comprising:
an antenna for transmitting and receiving radio
waves;
a main unit having a transmitter, a receiver, and a
first controller, said transmitter and said receiver
being connected to said antenna;
a handset having a speaker, a microphone, and a
second controller, said second controller being connected
to said speaker, said microphone, and said first
controller;
a display unit having a head-up display for
displaying communications information and telephone push
buttons in a superimposed relation to a front view
outside of the front windshield; and
a transparent touch panel formed on the front
windshield in a pattern corresponding to the displayed
telephone push buttons.
Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
- 3 -
The Examiner relies on the admitted prior art in
Appellant's figure 4 and specification, pages 1-2, and the
following prior art patents:
Ellis 3,956,745 May 11, 1976
Moss 4,818,048 April 4,
1989
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Moss in view of the admitted prior art and
Ellis.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13) (pages
referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the Examiner's
position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 12) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14)
(pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The Examiner erred in stating that Appellant failed to
provide reasons in support of the separate patentability of
claim 5 for the reasons stated by Appellant (RBr1-2).
However, since the rejection of claim 1 is reversed, the
Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
- 4 -
Examiner's failure to address claim 5 does not affect this
decision.
Obviousness
Moss is directed to a holographic head-up display panel
"to allow an operator such as a pilot or driver to look at a
complex control panel on a head-up display and to see his own
inputs on that panel, as relayed from a tactile or other
sensor on the panel" (col. 1, lines 27-31). Figure 9 is
closest to Appellant's invention because it has an illuminated
transmission hologram 73 which projects a virtual image
keyboard beyond the windshield 12, instead of having an edge-
illuminated, multiple layer hologram 11 affixed to the
windshield as in figures 1 and 2. The keyboard arrangements
are shown in figures 7 and 8. A second hologram 77 in
figure 9 focusses a dot on the virtual image 71 of the
keys 61-67 and 69 and thumbwheel 68 to indicate which key is
being actuated. Moss provides the control functions via a
control panel 13 not located on the windshield.
The admitted prior art of Appellant's figure 4 shows a
typical handset of a conventional mobile telephone equipment.
Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
- 5 -
Moss does not disclose that the display can be for
displaying communications information and telephone push
buttons of a mobile telephone equipment. The Examiner states
that "[t]he prior art set forth by applicant shows all the
claimed structure needed for a mobile telephone" (EA3). While
Appellant's figure 4 shows only a handset, there appears to be
no disagreement that it would have been obvious for Moss to
display any kind of control panel, including mobile telephone
equipment communications information and telephone push
buttons.
Moss does not disclose or suggest "a transparent touch
panel formed on the front windshield in a pattern
corresponding to the displayed telephone push buttons." The
Examiner finds that "Ellis had suggested (col. 2, lines 42-46)
that light could pass through a programmable keyboard with
actuating key means" (EA3). The Examiner concludes that
"[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art having Ellis would readily
find it obvious that the actuating keys in Moss could be made
part of the head-up display" (EA3).
Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
- 6 -
Appellant argues that Ellis "fails to teach or suggest
the placement of the programmable keyboard on the front
windshield of a car" (Br11). Appellant further argues that
the keyboard in Ellis has three non-transparent area for
selecting which liquid crystal member 7, 8, or 9 provides the
labeling for the transparent keyboard and that these non-
transparent areas "would be dangerous if placed on the front
windshield of a car" (Br11). Appellant still further argues
that there would have been no motivation to combine the
teachings of the applied prior art in the manner contemplated
by the Examiner (Br12-13).
Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
- 7 -
We agree with Appellant that there is no motivation in
Ellis to provide a transparent touch panel for a head-up
display. Ellis is not in the environment of head-up displays
and the only apparent reason for combining Ellis with Moss is
by use of Appellant's disclosure. Moss does not teach or
suggest that the head-up display should be overlaid on a
transparent touch panel. The Examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 1-
7 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
- 8 -
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MacPEAK, and SEAS
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037