Ex Parte Vogel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

11710163 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

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.
11/710,163 02/23/2007 Martin Vogel HARM 0136 PUSA1 4851
109676 7590 01/29/2018
Rrnnks; Kiisdiman P P /Harman
EXAMINER
1000 Town Center BODDIE, WILLIAM
Twenty Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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 MARTIN VOGEL and RENE WUSSLER
Appeal 2017-002846
Application 11/710,163
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AMBER L. HAGY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 14-17, which are all of the pending
claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Studer Professional Audio
AG. (App. Br. 3.)
2 In an Amendment dated March 18, 2010, Applicants withdrew claims 18-
28 from consideration in response to the Examiner’s Restriction
Requirement. Claims 2 and 13 were canceled in an Amendment dated
September 21, 2015.
Appeal 2017-002846
Application 11/710,163
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellants, “[t]he invention relates to a device for
entering values with a screen for displaying values and with at least one
element for manual entry of the values provided in front [of] the screen.”
(Spec. ^ 2.) By way of context, the Specification describes control boards,
such as audio mixers, which include multiple knobs and/or sliding levers for
providing input. (Id. ^ 4.) The Specification further describes the
“confusion” that may accompany control boards with many entry elements.
(Id.) Appellants purport to address that confusion by describing an input
device that includes manual entry elements (i.e., rotating knobs) that operate
in conjunction with a touch screen and a computer, wherein the functions of
the entry elements may be easily ascertained by viewing the screen, and the
entry elements may also be reconfigured. (Id. 3-11, 33-35.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
disputed limitations italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A device for entering values for the processing of
audio signals in a signal processor, comprising:
a display screen for displaying the values;
at least one entry element arranged in front of the display
screen for producing a signal which corresponds to a manual
input action and which represents an increment by which at least
one of the values is changed;
a carrier configured to support the at least one entry
element provided in front of the display screen in the direction of
view;
2
Appeal 2017-002846
Application 11/710,163
a printed circuit board positioned in between the display
screen and the carrier, the printed circuit board comprising two
strip conductors',
a computer being connected to the at least one entry
element via connections in front of the display screen, where the
computer determines a position of the at least one entry element
by means of data and displays a feedback signal relating to set
values in at least one region of the display screen; and
where the computer is connected to the signal processor
for the processing of the audio signals such that the computer
transmits control commands to the signal processor for
processing the audio signals corresponding to settings at the at
least one entry element,
where the carrier is positioned in front of the printed
circuit board and wherein the printed circuit board is positioned
in front of the display screen, and
where the carrier comprises transparent regions
associated with the elements.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kanda US 5,247,295
Jaeger et al. (“Jaeger”) US 5,841,428
Eastty et al. (“Eastty”) US 6,3 59,632 B1
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eastty and Jaeger. (Final Act. 2-7.)
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eastty, Jaeger, and Kanda. (Final Act. 7.)
Sept. 21, 1993
Nov. 24, 1998
Mar. 19, 2002
3
Appeal 2017-002846
Application 11/710,163
ISSUE
Whether the Examiner erred in finding Jaeger teaches or suggests “a
printed circuit board positioned in between the display screen and the
carrier, the printed circuit board comprising two strip conductors,” “where
the carrier is positioned in front of the printed circuit board and wherein the
printed circuit board is positioned in front of the display screen,” and “where
the carrier comprises transparent regions associated with the elements,” as
recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent
claim 12.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 over the combination of
Eastty and Jaeger, finding in particular that Jaeger teaches or suggests the
limitations disputed by Appellants. (Final Act. 3—4; App. Br. 5-8.) The
Examiner relies on Figures 1—4 and 6 of Jaeger and the associated written
description. (Final Act. 3-4.) Figure 3 of Jaeger is reproduced below.
na 3
Figure 3 of Jaeger, reproduced above, is a side view of an
“electrical circuit control device.” (Jaeger 3:49, 3:59-60.)
4
Appeal 2017-002846
Application 11/710,163
In mapping the disputed limitations to Jaeger, the Examiner finds base
member 31 in combination with transparent plate 28, both shown in Figure 3
of Jaeger above, teach the claimed “carrier” that supports an “entry element”
(knob 12). (Final Act. 3—4; Ans. 3—4.) The Examiner further maps the
claimed “printed circuit board” to Jaeger’s disclosure of traces 41 and 51
(trace 41 is shown in Figure 3 and traces 41 and 51 are both shown in Figure
4). {Id.) The Examiner also maps the claimed “display screen” to Jaeger’s
flat panel display 16 shown in Figures 3 and 4. {Id.) The Examiner then
finds Jaeger teaches the carrier (base member 31) is positioned “in front of
the printed circuit board” and the printed circuit board “is positioned in front
of the display screen.” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner also finds Jaeger teaches the
carrier “comprises transparent regions,” citing Jaeger’s disclosure of
transparent plate 28 shown in Figure 3. {Id.)
Appellants argue the Examiner’s findings are in error because Jaeger
fails to teach a “printed circuit board.” (App. Br. 5-7.) We disagree. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Jaeger’s disclosure of “traces on a substrate”
falls within the broadest reasonable construction of the term “printed circuit
board.” (Ans. 4.) In their Reply Brief, Appellants respond by arguing that,
even if that construction is correct, “the Examiner has failed to establish
where the substrate of the so-called printed circuit board is located in
Jaeger.” (Reply Br. 2.) Again, we disagree, as the Examiner at least
implicitly finds that the front surface of Jaeger’s transparent plate 28
comprises the substrate for traces 41 and 51. {See Ans. 4; Jaeger Figs. 3 and
4.)
Appellants also argue that, even assuming the transparent cover plate
28 of Jaeger “can be considered to be similar to the substrate of the printed
5
Appeal 2017-002846
Application 11/710,163
circuit board for supporting the conductive traces 41,51,” the Examiner’s
findings are in error because “[t]he cover plate 28 of Jaeger cannot serve as
both the claimed ‘printed circuit board’ and the claimed ‘carrier.’” (Reply
Br. 2.) We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the ordinary artisan
would have found it obvious to integrate Jaeger’s base member 31 and
transparent plate 28 into the claimed carrier. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d
965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (making elements of a device integral is considered
an obvious design choice and does not render an invention patentable). We
are nevertheless persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument because, as
Appellants correctly note, the claims require that the “carrier is positioned in
front of the printed circuit board.” (Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added).) The
Examiner fails to make findings that Jaeger’s disclosure of the embodiment
as depicted in Figures 3 and 4 satisfies this limitation. In particular, if the
front surface of Jaeger’s transparent plate 28 is mapped to the substrate for
the claimed printed circuit board, as the Examiner at least implicitly finds
(Ans. 4), and if Jaeger’s transparent plate 28 is also mapped (along with base
member 31) to the claimed carrier, as the Examiner finds {id.), then Jaeger
appears to disclose (in the embodiment shown in Figures 3 and 4) a printed
circuit board in between the two components that the Examiner maps
together as the claimed “carrier.” The Examiner makes no findings to
address how that configuration satisfies the disputed limitations of claims 1
and 12, which require “the carrier is positioned in front of the printed circuit
board” (emphasis added).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the Examiner has not made
findings to support a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1 and 12.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
6
Appeal 2017-002846
Application 11/710,163
independent claims 1 and 12. The dependent claims stand with their
respective independent claims.
We additionally note that Jaeger also discloses a slightly different
embodiment in Figure 8, not cited by the Examiner, wherein the traces are
positioned on the back surface of transparent plate 28, instead of on the front
surface as shown in Figure 3. Jaeger explains that this modification
“protects the traces 41 b, 51 b from abrasion.” (See Jaeger 8:42-50.) In the
event of further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner consider whether the
embodiment depicted in Figure 8 of Jaeger teaches or suggests a carrier
(comprising base member 31 and the front surface of transparent plate 28)
“positioned in front of’ a printed circuit board (comprising the bottom
surface of transparent plate 28 with traces 41 and 51).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-12,
and 14-17 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
7