• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Patent of Audi AG: Examination of inventive step

25. November 2020

A patent of Audi AG for virtual text input is granted. Audi was successful with its appeal before the BPatG in the decisive question of inventive step: could a skilled person easily have come up with the same idea, given the state of the art?

Audi Patent gewährt- Erfinderische Tätigkeit

Examination of inventive step

In principle, the contactless operation or control of device functions, which is also the basis of the invention of the patent in dispute (virtual text input), is a known state of the art. And for the examination of inventive step (§ 4 German PatG), exactly this must be considered and the question must be clarified whether the invention would have been obvious to a skilled person. As a matter of principle, only those publications that have clearly been made public before the filing date are taken into consideration (but not patent applications that have not yet been published).

In this context it is important to note that a mosaic-like combination of features from different publications is not possible for the fictitious skilled person. This is because, as a compensation for the fact that a fictitious person skilled by definition knows the entire prior art, his ability to combine features in fiction is limited per se. Incidentally, the question of inventive step is very often the point of dispute with the patent authorities when it comes to the granting and also the maintenance of patents.

Known state of the art

The patent in dispute entitled “Device for contactless character input” (No. 10 2013 013 697) of Audi AG was rejected by the DPMA’s examining division. In this decision, the invention lacked inventive step, especially with respect to the known prior art from the publications D1 and D3. Audi filed an appeal against this decision before the Federal Patent Court – successfully.

Let’s have a look on the state of art: Publication D1 (DE 10 2011 121 585 A1) describes a device for the contactless input of characters with a display and a recognition unit for recognizing a writing trace. Publication D3 (WO 2009 / 24 112 A2) describes a display device with a display and proximity sensors; the position and distance of a control element is detected by the proximity sensors. In addition, publication D4 (US 2011 / 254 765 A1) describes a device for the contact-free input of characters by the user writing with his hand in free space as if on a “virtual blackboard”.

Patent of Audi AG: virtual text input from multiple perspectives

In this area, Audi set itself the task of providing improved font input and operation without the classic gestures that have to be learned first. In particular, it should be possible for people to operate the system from several perspectives, for example, the driver and passenger in the car.

The key to this invention and the patent in dispute lies in an adaptive specification depending on the detected virtual write layer according to feature (K). For this purpose, a “virtual writing layer in space” is used, whereby a recognition unit follows the trace of a fingertip or a pen freely in space, e.g. by means of infrared sensors, and from this recognizes the writing trace itself and also determines the writing plane in space.

In the rejection decision, the examining body argued that this feature was “absolutely necessary in order to obtain a correct function of the device, which depends on a correct arrangement of the display sheet plane between the display and the writing plane defined by feature (I) on the basis of the input”.

However, the BPatG did not accept this argument. From the cited state of the art, no suggestion could be derived to combine these two measures in such a way that the virtual operating level would be redefined adaptively for each operating procedure just like the virtual writing level, and this also “depending on the position of the virtual writing level” (feature (K)). For example, the D3 brochure limits itself to a “fixed” arrangement of this virtual operating level.

BPatG: Claim and description as originally disclosed

The BPatG decided that any indication of a concrete connection between a recognized virtual write layer and an operating layer for virtual operating elements is not available with the current state of the art. The court added that the additional feature (K) is located on the original page 12 lines 10 to 14. And the new features (H) and (I) are also derived from the application documents and Figure 2, explained the BPatG.

This finding is important because the court thus confirmed that the patent claims and the revised description remain within the scope of the original disclosure.

The decision of the Examining Office was annulled and the patent was granted in the following version:
Claims 1 to 9 of June 24, 2020, description pages 1 to 13 of June 24, 2020, and 2 sheets of drawings with figures 1 and 2 from the filing date.

Do you need support with the granting or maintenance of the patent?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in patent law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are authorized to represent you before any court – in Germany and internationally.
Please contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources: 

Judgement of BPatG: Audi Patent “virtual text input”, 17 W (pat) 18/18

Image:

PIRO4D | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconappeal,  appeal before BPatG,  Audi,  Audi AG,  BPatG,  description,  display,  DPMA,  examination of inventive step,  examining division,  features,  inventive step,  maintenance of patent,  mosaic-like,  mosaic-like composition of features,  Patent Application,  Patent Claim,  patent grant,  patent on virtual inputting,  patent refused,  position of virtual writing plane,  registration refused,  virtual inputting,  virtual inputting of writing

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.