Ex Parte Drader et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

14553216 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/553,216 11/25/2014
38106 7590 02/04/2019
Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST (EP ORIGINATING)
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092
Marc Drader
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.
13GR20483US/852663.648 1628
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARC DRADER,
JEREMIE TEYSSIER, and
OLIVIER POTHIER 1
Appeal 2018-004882
Application 14/553,216
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the applicant and one of the real parties in interest,
STMicroelectronics SA. Appeal Br. 2. Appellant also identifies
STMicroelectronics (Grenoble 2) SAS as a real party in interest. Id.
Appeal 2018-004882
Application 14/553,216
Invention
The Specification discloses the use of distance sensors to assess the
inclination of an object with respect to the direction defined by the
alignment of the sensors. See Abstract. The Specification's Figure 2,
illustrating this assessment, is reproduced below:
//
I
I
\,
21_..-']
I
z~
\ : 1Z 08
\' I \! .
_.$1 OS1 CMO
OS2
The Specification's Figure 2 illustrates two sensors2 that measure
distances DI', D2' to object OB. See Spec. 9, 11. 8-10. The two sensors are
aligned along axis X, enabling use of the distance measurements to
determine "that the object OB is in an inclined position in relation to the axis
X." Id. at 9, 1. 19.
2 Both sensors are labeled S 1 in the figure. This is a typographical
inconsistency with the description in the Specification, which refers to "two
distance sensors S 1, S2." Spec. 8, 1. 25.
2
Appeal 2018-004882
Application 14/553,216
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method, comprising:
determining distance measurements to an object in a first direction,
using distance sensors aligned in a second direction different from the
first direction;
assessing, using processing circuitry, a first inclination angle of the
object in relation to the second direction based on the distance
measurements; and
determining, using the processing circuitry, a first command of an
apparatus based on the first inclination angle assessment.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-11, and 14--23 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Minnen et al.
(US 2014/0035805 Al; published Feb. 6, 2014) ("Minnen") and Sood et al.
(US 2015/0062056 Al; published Mar. 5, 2015) ("Sood"). Final Act. 8-19.
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Minnen, Sood, and Drader et al. (US 2013/0153754
Al; published June 20, 2013) ("Drader '754"). Final Act. 19-21.
The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 1, 7, 18, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bouchilloux
(US 2015/0090884 Al; published Apr. 2, 2015) and Sood. Final Act. 2-8.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Given the plain meaning of the relevant limitations of claim I-which
accords with the Specification-the claimed inclination angle is assessed in
relation to a direction of alignment for distance sensors that provide the
distance measurements on which the inclination assessment angle is based.
See, e.g., Spec. 8, 1. 20-9, 1. 19, Fig. 2.
3
Appeal 2018-004882
Application 14/553,216
In both rejections of claim 1, the Examiner broadly interprets the term
inclination in isolation to mean "a position/pose of a user's hand, i.e.[,] how
the user is positioned." Final Act. 3, 8 ( emphasis omitted). Thus, the
Examiner finds that Bouchilloux's and Minnen's gesture detection (e.g.,
hand pose detection) disclosures teach or suggest assessing a first
inclination of an object. See Final Act. 3, 9 (citing, e.g., Bouchilloux ,r,r 41,
63, Figs. 7 A-F; Minnen ,r 248, Fig. 20). The Examiner does not, however,
rely on either Bouchilloux or Minnen to teach or suggest the assessed
inclination being an inclination angle in relation to a direction in which
distance sensors are aligned (i.e., the claimed second direction). See Final
Act. 3, 9. Instead, the Examiner relies on Sood's three-dimensional motion
sensor to cure the acknowledged deficiencies of Bouchilloux and Minnen.
See Final Act. 3--4, 9 (citing Sood ,r,r 17, 30, 37); Ans. 4 (Sood is relied on
"for the specifics of the first inclination angle"), 5 ("Sood teaches ...
sloping side-to-side motion"), 7.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred by failing to show how Sood's
touch and motion sensor teachings would have rendered obvious modifying
either Bouchilloux or Minnen in the claimed manner. See Appeal Br. 24;
Reply Br. 6. Appellant acknowledges that "Sood discloses determining
sloping motion of an object ( e.g., direction of movement of the object, which
requires motion)." Appeal Br. 24; see also Reply Br. 6. But Appellant
argues this differs from the claimed assessment of "an inclination angle of
the object (e.g., the relative positions of portions of the object, which does
not require motion)." Appeal Br. 24--25. Appellant emphasizes that the
claimed inclination angle is "in relation to a direction based on distance
4
Appeal 2018-004882
Application 14/553,216
measurements" (i.e., the direction in which the distance sensors are aligned).
Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The Examiner
relies on Sood's use of a three-dimensional motion sensor to detect motions
in three dimensions. Final Act. 3 ( citing Sood ,r 37). However, with respect
to Sood' s three-dimensional motion sensor, this detected information merely
indicates whether an object is near or far from the sensors, or is moving
closer to or away from the sensors. The inclination angle of the object itself,
at least with respect to the three-dimensional motion sensor, is not assessed
using this data.
The Examiner also cites to Sood's detection of different types of
motions, including a sloping side-to-side motion. Final Act. 3 ( citing Sood
,r 37). The cited teachings of Sood, however, are directed to distinguishing
side-to-side motion, up-and-down motion, and, depending on granularity of
the three-dimensional motion sensor, a motion that has both a side-to-side
component and an up-and-down component (i.e., sloping). Sood ,r 37.
For these reasons, the Examiner's findings do not show that the
combinations of Minnen and Sood, or Bouchilloux and Sood, teach or
suggest "assessing ... a first inclination angle of [an] object in relation to [a]
second direction based on the distance measurements" of "distance sensors
aligned in [the] second direction different," as recited in claim 1. The
Examiner also does not show that Drader cures the noted deficiency. See
Appeal Br. 19--21.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claim 1, and claims 2-23, which have similar recitations.
5
Appeal 2018-004882
Application 14/553,216
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23.
REVERSED
6