Ex Parte Tomasson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2013

11620208 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
11/620,208 01/05/2007 Kris Tomasson 81154551 8867
28395 7590 12/17/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
TUN, NAY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2013 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 KRIS TOMASSON and BRIAN WHITE
____________________

Appeal 2011-006229
Application 11/620,208
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006229
Application 11/620,208
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-6 and 8-15. Claim 7 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a display system for an automotive vehicle.
Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A display system for an automotive vehicle comprising:
a sensor arrangement configured to determine a state of
the vehicle;
a display including indicia indicative of the state of the
vehicle;
an indicator element associated with the display and
operatively connected with the sensor arrangement such that the
indicator element indicates the state of the vehicle by its
position relative to the indicia, the indicator element being
configured to translate in a first direction as the state of the
vehicle increases, if the state of the vehicle is less than a first
predetermined threshold, to rotate as the state of the vehicle
increases, if the state of the vehicle is greater than the first
predetermined threshold and less than a second predetermined
threshold, and to translate in a second direction as the state of
the vehicle increases, if the state of the vehicle is greater than
the second predetermined threshold; and
a looped belt attached with the indicator element and
configured to cause the indicator element to translate in the first
and second directions.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Appeal 2011-006229
Application 11/620,208
3
Shotz
Wada
Honma
US Des. 249,947
US 6,714,126 B2
US 7,347,160 B2
Sept. 5, 1978
Mar. 30, 2004
Mar. 25, 2008

REJECTIONS
1

The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Honma, Shotz, and Wada. Ans. 4-8.
Claims 8-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Honma and Shotz. Ans. 8-10.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. The Examiner erred by failing to provide evidence supporting a
finding that a “‘larger area of central region to display other
information’ does indeed ‘[enhance] the benefit of centerless needle
pointer type meter.’” App. Br. 4.
2. “[B]ecause space is limited within vehicle instrument panels,
modifying Honma with Shotz as suggested by the Examiner would
render Honma unsatisfactory for its intended purposes.” Id.

1
Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 12 on the
basis of claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-
6, 9-11 and 13-15. Therefore, based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide
the appeal of claims 1-6 and 7-15 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2011-006229
Application 11/620,208
4
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4-5)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2), the issue presented on appeal is whether the
Examiner erred in combining Honma and Shotz.

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 (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-10) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 11-13) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
The Examiner finds that modifying the circular display of Honma to
incorporate the oblong design of Shotz would maximize a usable center
region for other displays having various shapes (e.g., Homna’s display
device 7 depicted as rectangular in shape). Ans. 5, 11. We agree and find the
Examiner’s rationale for combining Honma and Shotz reasonable and
representative of an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In contrast, Appellants provide
insufficient rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us that providing a
central region shaped to accommodate and maximize the usable area of a
central display region would not be an enhancement or would otherwise
make the modification improper.
Appeal 2011-006229
Application 11/620,208
5
Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a
combination of known elements, the Court in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007) explains:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock [,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.

Thus, we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because the
Examiner has established a nexus for the combination of the cited
references. “Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have
obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
We are further not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants’
contention that modifying Honma to incorporate the oblong design of Shotz
would render Honma unsatisfactory for its intended purposes. Appellants
argue that “making the meter of Honma larger in view of Shotz (such that it
takes up more area and thus has a ‘larger area of central region to display
other information’) would make it difficult (if not impossible) to package
within the vehicle instrument panels contemplated by Honma.” App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2011-006229
Application 11/620,208
6
We disagree. Other than attorney argument, Appellants provide no evidence
that Honma’s instrument panel would be unable to readily accommodate the
modified design. Furthermore, as explained by the Examiner, while
employing the oblong shape of Shotz’s display reduces wasted area by
conforming the central region to the shape of a sub-display, it does not
necessarily result in making the meter of Honma larger. Ans. 12. Because
Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence that the combination would
render Honma unsatisfactory for its intended purposes and, furthermore,
premises their arguments on the unfounded conclusion that the combination
would result in an overall larger display size, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error.
Therefore, on the record before us, Appellants have provided
insufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that the combination of
references asserted by the Examiner is improper. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Honma,
Shotz, and Wada and, for the same reasons, sustain the rejections of
independent claims 8 and 12 over Honma and Shotz together with the
rejections of dependent claims 2-6, 9-11 and 13-15 not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
We find the Examiner did not err in combining Honma and Shotz.

Appeal 2011-006229
Application 11/620,208
7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6 and 8-15 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

ELD