2019004809 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

Snap-on incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 14, 2020

2019004809 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

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. 14/531,649 11/03/2014 Joshua Covington 14-1888 8972 20306 7590 12/14/2020 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 300 S. WACKER DRIVE 32ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER SHAH, PRIYANK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2020 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 JOSHUA COVINGTON and APRIL REYNALD Appeal 2019-004809 Application 14/531,649 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Snap-on Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-004809 Application 14/531,649 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to methods and systems for displaying vehicle data parameters with pinch-and-expand inputs. Title. Claims 61, 77, 101–103, 105, 106, and 112–124 are pending; claims 61, 77, and 113 are independent. Appeal Br. 20–29. Claim 61 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 61. A method comprising: receiving, by a vehicle service tool (VST) comprising a touch-screen display, a plurality of vehicle data messages from a vehicle, wherein the plurality of vehicle data messages comprises (i) multiple vehicle data messages comprising a first vehicle data parameter (VDP) identifier and a vehicle data parameter associated with the first VDP identifier, and (ii) multiple vehicle data messages comprising a second VDP identifier and a vehicle data parameter associated with the second VDP identifier, wherein the first VDP identifier is different than the second VDP identifier; displaying, by the touch-screen display, a plurality of small VDP graph windows and a large graph window according to a first graph configuration, wherein the first graph configuration defines a size of each of the plurality of small VDP graph windows and the large graph window and a respective position at which each of the plurality of small VDP graph windows and the large graph window is displayed on the touch- screen display, and wherein the plurality of small VDP graph windows comprises a first small VDP graph window; displaying, by the touch-screen display, a first VDP graph within the first small VDP graph window, wherein the first VDP graph is associated with the first VDP identifier, wherein displaying the first VDP graph comprises displaying a graphical representation of parameter values associated with the first VDP identifier; displaying, by the touch-screen display, a second VDP graph within the large VDP graph window, wherein the second Appeal 2019-004809 Application 14/531,649 3 VDP graph is associated with the second VDP identifier, wherein displaying the second VDP graph comprises displaying a graphical representation of parameter values associated with the second VDP identifier; receiving, by the VST, a pinch-and-expand input pertaining to the first VDP graph on the touch-screen display; and repositioning, by the VST in response to receiving the pinch-and-expand input pertaining to the first VDP graph on the touch-screen display, the first VDP graph and the second VDP graph within the plurality of small VDP graph windows and the large graph window according to the first graph configuration, wherein repositioning the first VDP graph and the second VDP graph in the displayed presentation comprises displaying the first VDP graph increased in size within the large VDP graph window as defined by the first graph configuration and the second VDP graph decreased in size within the first small VDP graph window as defined by the first graph configuration. References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Anzures US 2011/0163969 A1 July 7, 2011 Roth US 2012/0169768 A1 July 5, 2012 Fish US 2014/0277908 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Feng US 2015/0007078 A1 Jan. 1, 2015 Min US 2015/0268811 A1 Sept. 24, 2015 Saito US 2017/0010016 A1 Jan. 12, 2017 Claims 61, 77, 101, 112, 113, 116, 121, and 124 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fish in view of Anzures. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-004809 Application 14/531,649 4 Claim 102 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fish in view of Anzures and in further view of Min. Final Act. 10. Claim 103 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fish in view of Anzures, and in further view of Saito et al. Final Act. 11. Claims 105, 106, 117, 118, 122, and 123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fish in view of Anzures, and in further view of Feng. Final Act. 13. Claims 114, 115, 119, and 120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fish in view of Anzures, and in further view of Roth. Final Act. 15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error. According to Appellant, “Anzures[] does not teach or suggest repositioning the first content icon,” and “even assuming the pieces of content in Anzures are VDP graphs, modifying Fish with Anzures to replace displayed content with un- displayed content associated with a displayed icon does not amount to” the repositioning limitations as recited in claim 61. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4, 5. Appellant contends “Fish and Anzures do not teach Appeal 2019-004809 Application 14/531,649 5 continuing to display VDP graph windows according to the first graph configuration being used when the pinch-and-expand input is received.” Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 6, 7. Appellant further contends “Fish is silent as to a first graph configuration” and there is “no disclosure in Anzures that teaches displaying multiple video objects simultaneously.” Appeal Br. 17, 12; see also Reply Br. 8, 9. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellant’s arguments focus on the individual teachings of each reference, whereas the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combined teachings of Fish and Anzures. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not . . . that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Here, the Examiner correctly finds Fish teaches a vehicle service tool (VST) that includes a display of multiple graphs according to a first graph configuration, and repositions graphs in response to an expand input gesture. See Final Act. 3–5; Fish Fig. 9 (depicting repositioned graphs 808 and 806 in a first graph configuration), ¶¶ 62 (“icons may include numerical, graphical, percentage and the like to show the data”), 63 (“in the event that the user would like zoom in to see a larger display of information about the data on a particular icon, he may simply use one or 2 finger gestures to make the portion of the GUI or icon bigger”), 64 (“[t]he remaining data icons 804, 806, 810, 812 may be repositioned”). The Examiner relies on Anzures for teaching or suggesting “adjusting the position and/or size of one or more user interface objects,” including a “replacement operation.” Final Act. 6; Anzures Figs. 5N, 5O, ¶ 197 (“the device replaces . . . the playing of the first Appeal 2019-004809 Application 14/531,649 6 piece of content . . . in the first region . . . of the display with playing of a second piece of content”). The Examiner further finds that Anzures “teaches pinch and expand input” and “doesn’t limit the graphical user interface object for applying finger gestures thereon to just icons.” Ans. 6; Advisory Act. 2; Fish ¶¶ 3, 9, 174; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill would reposition the graphs of Fish as required by claim 61, in light of the gesture and display teachings of Anzures. See Final Act 5, 6; Ans. 6. We have considered Appellant’s arguments the Examiner errs; however, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s combination fails to render obvious the disputed limitations of claim 61. We agree with the Examiner that Fish teaches “the first graph configuration that defines the size and the position of the small and large graph windows” (Ans. 8), and, in combination with Anzures, “it would be obvious to a [person of ordinary skill] to perform a de-pinch gesture onto the user interface objects . . . for enlarging the graphics onto sub-regions” (Ans. 6) “as well as, repositioning the original content . . . onto the small icon region” (Advisory Act. 2). The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because, in this case, the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” as the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421 (2007). We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 61, and the rejections of the remaining claims which are not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 18. Appeal 2019-004809 Application 14/531,649 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 61, 77, 101, 112, 113, 116, 121, 124 103 Fish, Anzures 61, 77, 101, 112, 113, 116, 121, 124 102 103 Fish, Anzures, Min 102 103 103 Fish, Anzures, Saito 103 105, 106, 117, 118, 122, 123 103 Fish, Anzures, Feng 105, 106, 117, 118, 122, 123 114, 115, 119, 120 103 Fish, Anzures, Roth 114, 115, 119, 120 Overall Outcome 61, 77, 101–103, 105, 106, 112, 113–124 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED