Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1497
`
`Exhibit Q
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1498
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 5 PagelD #: 1498
`
`Customized Form PTO/SB/33 (07-09)
`Doc Code: AP.PRE.REQ
`Application #|11/349,350
`Confirmation #
`
`PRE-APPEAL BRIEF
`
`02/08/2006
`
`REQUEST FOR REVIEW
`
`Applicant requests review of the final rejection in the above-identified application.
`
`No amendmentsare beingfiled with this request.
`
`This requestis being filed with a NOTICE OF APPEAL.
`
`The review is requested for the reason(s) stated on the attached sheet(s).
`
`Note: No more than five (5) pages may beprovided.
`
`| am the Attorney of Record.
`
`TEL: 703-739-4900 * FAX: 703-739-9577 * CUSTOMER No. 881
`
`Date: May 12, 2010
`
`Signed By
`Attorney of Record,
`
`/Douglas E. Jackson/
`Name: Douglas E. Jackson
`Registration No.: 28,518
`
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC ¢ 1199 North Fairfax St. * Suite 900 * Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`§24LT:20122:170840:1:ALEXANDRIA
`
`DEFTS_00000001
`
`DEFTS_00000001
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1499
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 5 PagelD #: 1499
`
`SN 11/349,350
`Docket # P08562US01/RFH
`
`Remarks/Arguments for
`Pre-Appeal Brief Request
`
`REMARKS AND ARGUMENTSIN SUPPORT OF
`
`PRE-APPEAL BRIEF REQUEST FOR REVIEW
`
`In the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 section of the final rejection, independent claim
`
`1 and dependent claims 2, 26 and 28 were all rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being
`
`anticipated by (or obvious over) the newly cited Jaeger patent.
`
`In the following Claim Rejections
`
`- 35 USC § 103 section, the remaining claims 3-5, 21-25, 27 and 29 which are all dependent on
`
`independent claim 1 were rejected as being obvious over the Jaeger patent with or without
`
`additional references as noted. However, for the following reasons, it is submitted that
`
`independentclaim 1 is allowable over the cited Jaeger patent; and thus all of the remaining
`
`claims which are dependenton claim 1 are likewise allowable.
`
`As recited in independent claim 1, the present invention is particularly directed to a
`
`control system for a manually operated device (e.g., automobile) having a contro! surface (e.g.,
`
`a finger touch screen 120) used as an input for control variables of the manually operated
`
`device. A rotating control knob (e.g., knob 101) for input of a separate control variable of the
`
`manually operated device is mounted to the control surface. An optical source is then provided
`
`which projects a) image information on the control surface of the control variables and b) light
`
`onto a portion of the rotating control knob; and an associated optical detector is provided which
`
`optically detects a) light reflected from the control surface to signal an input for one of the
`
`control variables and b) light reflected from the rotating control knob mounted to said control
`
`surface which provides rotational position information thereof. Then, by use of a meansfor
`
`analyzing the rotational position information, there is provided a meansfor controlling the
`
`separate control variable of the manually operated device as a result of said analysis.
`
`As noted above, independentclaim 1 specifically requires the following limitations:
`
`A) an optical source which projects a) image information on the control surface
`of the control variables AND b)light onto a portion of the rotating control
`knob; and
`
`§24LT:20122:170840:1:ALEXANDRIA
`
`1
`
`|
`
`
`
`DEFTS_00000002
`
`DEFTS_00000002
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1500
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 4 of 5 PagelD #: 1500
`
`SN 11/349,350
`Docket # P08562US01/RFH
`
`Remarks/Arguments for
`Pre-Appeal Brief Request
`
`B) an optical detector which optically detects a) light reflected from the control
`surface to signal an input for one of the control variables AND b)light
`reflected from the rotating control knob mounted to said control surface which
`providesrotational position information thereof (emphasis added).
`
`In the Action, the examiner has rejected claim 1 over the Jaeger patent, however this
`
`patent does not haveall the above noted elements, let alone ail of the claimed elements in
`
`combination.
`
`In particular, the examiner states with respect to limitations A) that these are shownin
`
`the Jaeger patent at 8/56-65 and 16/64-17/17. However, 8/56-65 recites as follows:
`
`The points at which the row and column busbars 21 and 26 cross each other
`define an array of image pixels 29 at which the phosphor layer 23 emits light
`whena voltage difference is applied across the row and column busbarsthat
`cross eachotherat a particular pixel location. Thus any desired image can be
`produced by applying a voltage difference across the particular row busbars 21
`and column busbars 26 that define image pixels 29 at which light needs to be
`emitted to form the image.
`
`This is simply defining one form of an electroluminescentflat panel. The light from this panelis
`
`not usedtoilluminate the knob 12 at all or as claimed in claim 1. That illumination for the
`
`control knob 12 is the LED assetforth in 16/64-17/17, which was also referenced by the
`
`examiner and whichrecites:
`
`An LED (light emitting diode) 163 or otherlight source is secured to the
`centerof layer 162 to direct light towards mirror 161. Returnedlight is detected
`by two phototransistors 164A and 164B or other light sensors which are secured
`to layer 162 at opposite sides of LED 163, the photodiodes being equidistant
`from the axis of rotation of knob 12j. The angular spacing of the phototransistors
`164A and 164B from eachother, relative to the axis of rotation of the knob,is
`less than 180°. Light in passage from LED 163 to the phototransistors 164 is
`modulated by an opaque disk 166 which extends across chamber 159 at a
`location between the mirror 161 and phototransistors 164. Disk 166 has an
`opening 167 or transparent region at its center to provide a light path from LED
`163 to the mirror. The disk also has an annular array of uniformly spaced apart
`slots 168 or transparent zones through whichreflected light is received by
`phototransistors 164. Slots 168 are shaped and positioned to create a
`quadrature code of the kind knownto the art which enablesa digital data
`processorto track rotary motion of a Knob around a series of angular settings
`andto output a signal whichis indicative of the current setting.
`
`From the above, it is thus evident that there is no teaching of using an optical device to project
`
`an image on a surface AND a knob asclaimed in A) above.
`
`524LT:20122:170840:1:ALEXANDRIA
`
`2
`
`DEFTS_00000003
`
`DEFTS_00000003
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1501
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70-12 Filed 09/02/21 Page 5 of5PagelD #: 1501
`
`SN 11/349,350
`Docket # P08562US01/RFH
`
`Remarks/Arguments for
`Pre-Appeal Brief Request
`
`With respect to limitations B), the examiner asserts in page 3 of the rejection that those
`
`limitations are shownin figure 42 of the Jaeger patent and are taught as well at the same
`
`location at 16/64-17/17 quoted above. However, figure 42 shows hall effect sensors 194-1 and
`
`194-2, and thus contains nothing optical at all or any teaching relating thereto. And while the
`
`Jaeger patent does have an optical knob rotation sensor, there is no teaching of sensing
`
`optically anything from the control surface as well as specifically claimed in claim 1. Thus, there
`
`is also no teaching or suggestion in the Jaeger patent of using an optical detector to detect light
`reflected from the control surface to signal an input ANDlight reflected from the rotating control
`
`knob mounted to the control surface.
`
`Therefore,for all of the foregoing reasons,it is submitted that independent claim 1 is
`
`neither disclosed nor made obvious by the Jaeger patent, so that claim 1 is allowable over the
`
`Jaeger patent. And for at least these same reasons, it is submitted that dependent claims 3-5
`
`and 21-29 are also allowable.
`
`Forall of the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that the present application is in condition
`
`for allowance and such action is solicited.
`
`§24LT:20122:170840:1:ALEXANDRIA
`
`3
`
`DEFTS_00000004
`
`DEFTS_00000004
`
`