Ex Parte Waeller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13138399 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/138,399 10/27/2011
26646 7590 10/04/2016
ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christoph W aeller
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11150/169 8213
EXAMINER
GHAFARI, SEPIDEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
uspto@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPH WAELLER and KATHARINA
BACHFISCHER
Appeal2015-002569
Application 13/138,399
Technology Center 2600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002569
Application 13/138,399
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
16-23, 26-31, and 36-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a motor vehicle including a
gesture recognition module adapted to recognize the gesture and as a result
execute a function of the motor vehicle without touching a touch screen.
The function of the motor vehicle includes scrolling through a list, shifting a
map detail, or scaling a map detail. Spec. 9:4--11 :8.
Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
16. A motor vehicle, comprising:
a display device adapted to display variable information;
a touch screen arranged above the display;
a control device adapted to display on the display device an
operating element for operating a function of the motor vehicle
by touch of the touch screen; and
a gesture recognition module adapted to recognize a gesture to
execute the function of the motor vehicle without touching the
touch screen, the function of the motor vehicle including
scrolling through a list, shifting a map detail or scaling a map
detail.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pryor
Yoo et al.
US 7 ,084,859 B 1
US 2008/0180402 Al
2
Aug. 1, 2006
July 31, 2008
Appeal2015-002569
Application 13/138,399
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 16-23, 26, 27, 29--31, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pryor.
Claims 28 and 38--43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pryor in view of Yoo.
THE ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that
1. Pryor teaches "a gesture recognition module adapted to recognize a
gesture to execute the function of the motor vehicle without
touching the touch screen, the function of the motor vehicle
including scrolling through a list, shifting a map detail or scaling a
map detail" as recited in claim 16; and
2. Yoo teaches scaling and shifting a map as required by claim 3 9.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Action.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claims 16-23, 26, 27, 29-31, 36, and 37 rejected under 35 US.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Pryor
Appellants argue that Pryor does not describe the features of claim 16
of a gesture recognition module adapted to recognize a gesture to execute
the function of the motor vehicle without touching the touch screen (App.
Br. 4). Appellants further argue that Pryor does not teach or suggest that the
3
Appeal2015-002569
Application 13/138,399
function of the motor vehicle includes scrolling through a list, shifting a map
detail or scaling a map detail (App. Br. 4). According to Appellants, Pryor
describes specifying a type of hand movement to a particular action (App.
Br. 4; citing col. 31, 11. 3 8--41 ). Appellants assert that while Pryor teaches
"positions or movements could themselves indicate the action to be taken"
(citing col. 31, 11. 41--43), Pryor does not teach scrolling through a list,
shifting a map detail, or scaling a map detail (App. Br. 4).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Pryor teaches a gesture recognition module using indirect
sensing methods, wherein one's finger image is sensed using cameras
independent of the screen itself and based on the detected direction of
movement, such as a movement of the finger from left to right near a slider
(i.e., scrolling), altering certain functions, e.g., increasing the heat (see Ans.
2-3; Final Act. 4; col. 29, 11. 7-10, col. 31, 11. 23-50, and col. 31, 11. 40-50).
Thus, Pryor teaches the limitation of "a gesture recognition module adapted
to recognize a gesture to execute the function of the motor vehicle without
touching the touch screen."
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16, and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 17-23, 26, 27, 29-31, 36, and 37
not argued separately (see App. Br. 5).
Claims 28 and 38-43 rejected under 35 US.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pryor in view of Yoo
Appellants argue, with respect to claim 39, that Yoo describes
improvements specific to a touch screen, but does not disclose any gesture
recognition module, much less recognizing a gesture without touching the
touch screen to execute a function including scrolling through a list, shifting
4
Appeal2015-002569
Application 13/138,399
a map detail or scaling a map detail (App. Br. 6). Appellants further argue
that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to modify Yoo to include a
gesture recognition module, since such a modification would vitiate the
intended objectives and advantages of Yoo of improving usability of a touch
screen (App. Br. 6).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. "The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the relevant issue is "what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." Id. "Combining the teachings of references does
not involve an ability to combine their specific structures." In re Nievelt,
482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCP A 1973). The Examiner relies on Pryor for the
teaching of gesture recognition to execute a function (see supra) and on Yoo
for the teaching of a zoom-in and zoom-out operation on a map (paras. 81-
82) (Ans. 3--4). In other words, the combination teaches gesture recognition
to execute the specific function of zooming in and out. For example,
moving a finger towards the touch screen would zoom into the map and
moving the finger away from the touch screen would zoom out of the map
(i.e., scaling and shifting the map as required by claim 39). One skilled in
the art at the time of the invention would readily recognize that movement of
a user's finger could be associated with various functions, such as scaling a
map detail or zooming. An artisan is presumed to possess both skill and
common sense. The skilled artisan is "also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton." See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421
(2007).
5
Appeal2015-002569
Application 13/138,399
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 39, and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 28, 38, and 40-43 not argued
separately (see App. Br. 7).
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that
1. Pryor teaches "a gesture recognition module adapted to recognize a
gesture to execute the function of the motor vehicle without
touching the touch screen, the function of the motor vehicle
including scrolling through a list, shifting a map detail or scaling a
map detail" as recited in claim 16; and
2. Yoo teaches scaling and shifting a map as required by claim 3 9.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-23, 26-
3 1, and 3 6-4 3 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6