Ex Parte Weinmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2013

11943305 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ULRICH WEINMANN, JENS-PETER WEISS,
THOMAS STAUNER, and WOLFRAM MANTHEY
____________

Appeal 2012-002378
Application 11/943,305
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ulrich Weinmann et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-15, 17, 19, and 21-23. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-002378
Application 11/943,305

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 21 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
21. A communication system of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle operating unit;
a vehicle output unit; and
an interface computer, which is connected to the vehicle
operating unit and the vehicle output unit,
wherein the interface computer is implemented to
connect a mobile terminal to the vehicle operating unit and the
vehicle output unit such that information from the mobile
terminal is displayable on the vehicle output unit and the
mobile terminal is operable via the vehicle operating unit,
wherein the interface computer controls communication
between the mobile terminal, the vehicle operating unit and the
vehicle output unit, based upon vehicle status information
received from a vehicle system disposed in the vehicle, and
wherein the vehicle operating unit comprises a touch
screen and an ergocommander having a structure that provides
clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, horizontal and
vertical displacement as a joystick, and vertical depression as a
button.
See App. Br. Clms. Appx. (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
Appellants request our review of the following rejections. See App.
Br. 2-3.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Witkowski (US 7,349,722 B2, iss. Mar. 25, 2008) in view of Winters (US
2003/0162572 A1, pub. Aug. 28, 2003).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Witkowski, Winters, and King (US 6,426,706 B1, iss. Jul. 30, 2002).
Appeal 2012-002378
Application 11/943,305

3
Claims 4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17, 19, 22, and 231 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Witkowski, Winters, and Nath (US
2005/0070245 A1, pub. Mar. 31, 2005).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Witkowski, Winters, and Mercier (US 6,961,644 B2, iss. Nov. 1, 2005).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Witkowski, Winters, and Spaur (US 7,366,892 B2, iss. Apr. 29, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Appellants challenge the rejection of independent claim 21 on the
basis that the Examiner erred in concluding Waters discloses an
“ergocommander” having the claimed structure. See App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br.
3-5. Appellants particularly focus on the clockwise and counterclockwise
rotation recited in the claim as being missing from Waters. See id. The
Examiner relies on the “joystick” of Winters as corresponding to the claimed
ergocommander. See Ans. 5 and 11-12 (citing Winters, paras. [0024] and
[0027]). Winters pertinently describes its joystick as a “lever” to be
manipulated by “moving the joystick in one of a number of different
directions or to one of number of different positions which each correspond
to respective processes, commands, operations, or the like.” Winters,
para. [0024]. The Winters joystick can also have “various buttons, triggers,
or the like (not shown), the movement of which can be associated with
respective processes, commands, operations, or the like.” See id. We are
not persuaded that any of the joystick movements disclosed in the

1 Appellants additionally identify claims 16 and 18, but those claims have
been canceled. See App. Br. 1 and 2.
Appeal 2012-002378
Application 11/943,305

4
aforementioned portions of Winters corresponds to the recited rotation. We
determine the Examiner erred in finding that the joystick of Winters has a
structure that provides clockwise and counterclockwise rotation.
The Examiner further provides a definition of “joystick” which
includes much of the “ergocommander” structure recited in claim 21. See
Ans. 12. However, the Examiner does not provide any source for the
proffered definition of “joystick.” We therefore determine the Examiner
erred in relying on this alleged definition in supporting the rejection of claim
21.
The Examiner finally asserts “[a] screen and an IPOD are
interchangeable simple substitution” and “it would have been prima facie
obvious to have a simple substitution, i.e. IPOD touch or scroll wheel.”
Ans. 12. That analysis does not establish that the “ergocommander” recited
in claim 21 was known previously to the present application’s filing date.
For example, it does not explain how the “scroll wheel” relates to the
claimed ergocommander having “structure that provides clockwise and
counterclockwise rotation, horizontal and vertical displacement as a joystick,
and vertical depression as a button.” We therefore determine the Examiner
erred in relying on this analysis in supporting the rejection of claim 21.
Claims 2-15, 17, 19, and 22-23 all ultimately depend from
independent claim 21, and are rejected as obvious over Witkowski, Winters,
and one of King, Nath, Mercier, and Spaur. However, none of those four
additional references is relied upon by the Examiner as being pertinent to the
“ergocommander” limitation in claim 21. See Ans. 6-10. Therefore, for the
foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-
15, 17, 19, and 21-23 as being unpatentable over the prior art.
Appeal 2012-002378
Application 11/943,305

5
DECISION
The rejections of claims 2-15, 17, 19, and 21-23 as unpatentable over
the prior art are each:
REVERSED

tkl