Ex Parte Vogel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 25, 201811710163 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation