Ex Parte Chan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2014

12215705 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

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.
12/215,705 06/27/2008 Alistair K. Chan 0507-006-003-000000 6372
44765 7590 09/25/2014
THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND
CLARENCE T. TEGREENE
11235 SE 6TH STREET
SUITE 200
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
EXAMINER
CRAIG, DWIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2014 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 ALISTAIR K. CHAN, RODERICK A. HYDE,
JORDIN T. KARE, and LOWELL L. WOOD JR.
____________________

Appeal 2012-006561
Application 12/215,705
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-006561
Application 12/215,705

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–75,136–141,144–148,212–
220, 280–284, and 335–339. Claims 6, 8–44, 47–49, 51–66, 76–135, 142,
143, 149–211, 221–279, 285–334, and 340–344 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appellants invented remote sensing techniques for detecting various
environmental conditions and communicating the environmental conditions
to a participant. Spec. ¶ 7. Computer simulation and modeling may be used
to provide suggestions or recommendations to the participants or may be
used to show observers or participants how the environmental conditions
may affect the participants' performance. Id.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 136, which are reproduced below [bracketed matter
and some paragraphing added]:
1. A method of processing wind profile information in sports
applications, comprising:
receiving wind profile information detected using
electronic remote sensing;
computer simulating at least one user action in a sports
context;
applying, in a computer simulation system, the received
wind profile information to the at least one user action; and

1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed Nov. 3, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 20,
2011), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed June 10, 2011).
Appeal 2012-006561
Application 12/215,705

3
generating an estimated user result from the computer
simulation system.

136. A method of processing wind profile information in sports
applications, comprising:
receiving wind profile information detected using
electronic remote sensing;
computer simulating at least one user action in a sports
context;
determining an objective to be achieved by the at least
one user action;
applying, in a computer simulation system, the received
wind profile information;
generating an estimated user result from the computer
simulation system; and
determining a suggested user action responsive to the
estimated user result and the objective.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Cavallaro
Howey
US 6,133,946
US 6,322,455 B1
Oct. 17, 2000
Nov. 27, 2001

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220,
280–284, and 335–339 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Howey.
Claims 136–141, 144, and 214 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro.2

2 The Examiner lists claims 127–144 and 214 as rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro in the Final Rejection.
Final Rej. 6. The Examiner then lists claims 137–144 and 214 as rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro in the
Appeal 2012-006561
Application 12/215,705

4
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 7,
45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220, 280–284, and 335–339
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Howey turns on whether Howey
discloses “wind profile information detected using electronic remote
sensing.”
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 136–141,
144, and 214 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and
Cavallaro turns on whether the combination of Howey and Cavallaro teaches
or suggests “determining an objective function to be achieved by the at least
one user action” and “determining a suggested user action responsive to the
estimated user result and the objective function.”

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220, 280–
284, and 335–339 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by
Howey
Appellants contend that Howey fails to disclose “wind profile
information detected using electronic remote sensing,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 5. Appellants specifically argue that a “wind profiler” is
understood to be “a system or device which detects the wind speed and
direction at various elevations above the ground using a device such as

Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 7. As noted above, claims 142 and 143 have
been cancelled. Accordingly, the correct listing of claims rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro is claims 137–
141, 144, and 214. We consider this typographical error to be harmless
error.
Appeal 2012-006561
Application 12/215,705

5
RADAR or Sonar.” Id. Appellants further argue that the claims require that
the detecting is performed via “remote sensing,” whereas Howey discloses
an anemometer that requires contact with the wind and therefore cannot be
remote. Id. Appellants additionally argue that Howey fails to appreciate the
benefits or problems addressed by remote detecting. Id.
The Examiner found that “wind profile information” encompasses
wind direction and wind velocity information, as is provided by an
anemometer and vane system, and is not limited to “RADAR or Sonar” as
argued by Appellants. Ans. 8.3 The Examiner further found that the term
“remote sensing” is not limited in scope to require the sensing being done
“without making contact with the object.” Id. at 9. Consequently, the
Examiner found that Howey discloses an “Optional Weather Monitoring
Apparatus” that “generates wind profile information detected using
electronic remote sensing.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Howey 6:52–63, Fig. 10).
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1, for example, recites “receiving
wind profile information detected using electronic remote sensing.” The
scope of the terms “wind profile information” and “electronic remote
sensing” is not limited by the Specification or the claims. We also agree
with the Examiner that “wind profile information” is not limited to
information detected at various elevations above the ground by a device such

3 According to Wikipedia there are also “sonic anemometers” and “laser
Doppler anemometers” which rely on sound waves and light pulses,
respectively, to detect wind speed and direction and these anemometers were
available at the time of the invention. See Wikipedia Anemometer,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer (last visited September 25, 2014);
see also, History of the Anemometer,
http://www.logicenergy.com/articles/history-anemometer/ (last visited
September 25, 2014).
Appeal 2012-006561
Application 12/215,705

6
as RADAR or Sonar. That is, we agree that “wind profile information”
encompasses the wind direction and wind velocity information provided by
an anemometer and vane system, as described by Howey.
We further agree with the Examiner that the Specification and claims
do not limit the term “remote.” The Specification describes “a remote
sensing system 160” that determines wind speed at two remote locations and
provides this information to a golfer. Spec. ¶ 28. That is, the term “remote”
is described in the Specification as remote from the recipient of the wind
profile information. Accordingly, Appellants argument that “remote
sensing” does not encompass an anemometer because an anemometer makes
contact with the wind is not consistent with the Specification and, therefore,
not persuasive. As found by the Examiner, Howey discloses a weather
monitoring apparatus, including an anemometer and vane system, for
detecting wind velocity and direction and incorporating this data into
projectile calculations performed by a connected computer. Ans. 9–10
(citing Howey 6:52–63, Fig. 10); Howey 7:17–25. As such, Howey
describes “wind profile information detected using electronic remote
sensing.”
Appellants additionally contend that the combination of Howey and
Cavallaro fails to teach or suggest “determining an objective function to be
achieved by the at least one user action” and “determining a suggested user
action responsive to the estimated user result and the objective function,” as
recited by claim 136. App. Br. 6–7. Although the Examiner’s rejection
includes a typographical error in listing the claims that are obvious over
Howey and Cavallaro, the Examiner found that claim 136 is anticipated by
Howey. Ans. 11–12. We have decided the appeal before us. Accordingly,
Appeal 2012-006561
Application 12/215,705

7
Appellants’ arguments that Cavallaro fails to disclose “determining an
objective” are not persuasive because the Examiner has not relied on
Cavallaro in rejecting claim 136. We further agree with the Examiner that
claim 136 does not require a specific “function” but merely recites an
“objective.” Ans. 11. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Howey
describes an objective, including “providing the golfer with feedback
relating to accuracy and distance and for displaying useful information while
presenting the golfer with a variety of skill challenging, instructional and
competitive options.” Howey Abstract. More specifically, Howey describes
“an option for determining the accuracy, distance, and consistency of shots .
. . so that the golfer is provided with highly accurate yardage information,
which information will greatly assist the golfer in selecting the proper club
during future rounds of golf.” Howey 9:15–33.

Claims 137–141, 144, and 214 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro
Appellants do not present separate arguments in support of 137–141,
144, and 214. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting these claims for the same reasons discussed above.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74,
136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220, 280–284, and 335–339 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Howey.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 136–141, 144, and 214
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro.
Appeal 2012-006561
Application 12/215,705

8

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212,
213, 215–220, 280–284, and 335–339 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Howey is sustained.
 The rejection of claims 136–141, 144, and 214 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kme