Ex Parte Dorsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2018

14962881 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/962,881 12/08/2015
24972 7590 07/18/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rainer Dorsch
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BOSC.P9693US/l 1604718 1057
EXAMINER
LEE,GENEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAINER DORSCH, CHRISTIAN HAUBELT,
THOMAS CLAUS, RUDOLF BICHLER,
and LARS MIDDENDORF
Appeal2018-000708
Application 14/962,881
Technology Center 2600
Before: JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JENNIFER S. BISK and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-000708
Application 14/962,881
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19. Claims 3, 4, 9,
13, 16, and 18 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal below reads as follows:
1. A device comprising:
a camera;
a processing unit; and
at least one inertial sensor;
wherein the processing unit is configured to (i)
determine a first movement profile of the device based on
movement data of the at least one inertial sensor, and (ii)
determine a second movement profile of the device based on
image data of an object observed using the camera, and (iii)
compare the second movement profile with the first
movement profile, and (iv) determine an item of adjustment
information for adjustment of the at least one inertial sensor
based on the comparison of the second movement profile
with the first movement profile;
wherein the movement data and the image data are
recorded in parallel as the device moves relative to the
object, the recorded movement data and the recorded image
data being used to determine the first movement profile and
the second movement profile, respectively.
App. Br. 14, Claims App.
2
Appeal2018-000708
Application 14/962,881
Pending Rejections 1
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanandan et al. (US 2014/0126771 Al;
pub. May 8, 2014, hereinafter "Ramanandan") in view of Ramaswamy (US
9,417,689 Bl; iss. Aug. 16, 2016). Ans. 3-9.
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected, claims 2 and 8 in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanandan,
Ramaswamy as applied to claims 1 and 7, above, and further in view of
Brunner et al. (US 2013/0335554 Al; pub. Dec. 19, 2013, hereinafter
"Brunner"). Ans. 9-11.
ISSUES
Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited
in the pending claims. 2
1 The Examiner states on page 12 of the Answer:
The rejections of claims 1-2, 5-8, 12, 14--15, 17, 19 under 35 U.S.C.
[ §] 103 as being unpatentable over US 9417 689 B 1 ("Ramaswamy")
in view of an additional teaching of US 9417 689 Bl ("Ramaswamy")
(as outlined in the Advisory Action) have been withdrawn. (Note
that these withdrawn rejections correspond to the rejections in the
Final Rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8, 12, 14--15, 17, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. [§] I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramaswamy and of
claims 13, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. [§] 103 as being unpatentable
over Ramaswamy in view of an additional teaching of Ramaswamy.)
( emphasis added).
3
Appeal2018-000708
Application 14/962,881
These contentions present us with the issues: Did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of Ramanandan and Ramaswamy teaches or
suggests the features recited in claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 and
the combination of Ramanandan, Ramaswamy, and Brunner teaches or
suggests the features recited in claims 2, 8, 10, and 11?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions the Examiner erred.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each
argument presented by the Appellants on pages 13 through 24 of the
Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner's
findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Ans. 13-24.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue "the fact that steps of
Ramaswamy's Fig. 5 could be performed in parallel says nothing about how
or why this could be applied to the features of Ramanandan." Reply Br. 2.
Appellants also argue "what would motivate a person of skill in the art to
replace Ramanandan's alleged two dimensional object-which is used in
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 9, 2017
(hereinafter "App. Br."), and Reply Brief filed October 30, 2017 (hereinafter
"Reply Br.").
4
Appeal2018-000708
Application 14/962,881
conjunction with estimating gravity and scale -with Brunner's target 101,
which Brunner uses for determining latency." Id. at 3.
We have considered Appellants above arguments in the Reply Brief
but find them unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner's responses. We conclude
that Appellants' arguments in their contentions ignore the actual reasoning
of the Examiner's rejection. Instead, Appellants attack a reference
individually for lacking a teaching that the Examiner relied on a combination
of references to show. It is well established that one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The effect of Appellants' argument is to raise and then knock down a
straw man rejection of each of the claims that was never made by the
Examiner, in that the Examiner did not rely solely on the one reference as
argued. In other words, Appellants argue Examiner's findings that were
never made. This form of argument is inherently unpersuasive to show
Examiner error. Our reviewing court requires that references must be read,
not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in combination with the prior
art as a whole. Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097.
Moreover, we do not agree with Appellants' attack on the Examiner's
rationale for a motivation to combine the references as stated in the
rejections. See Reply 2-3. Instead, we find the Examiner has articulated
reasonable rationale supporting such combinations. App. Br. 4, 6, 8, 9-11,
16-18, 23-24.
Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19.
5
Appeal2018-000708
Application 14/962,881
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, 14,
15, 17, 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6