Ex Parte Krapf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

13819048 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/819,048 05/08/2013
10800 7590 06/27/2018
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Reiner Krapf
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.
2178-0654 7845
EXAMINER
MCANDREW, CHRISTOPHER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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 REINER KRAPF, TOBIAS ZIBOLD, and ANDREJ ALBRECHT
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--19. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this decision we reference the Specification filed Feb. 26, 2013
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated Aug. 30, 2016 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed Jan. 30, 2017 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated
Mar. 22, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed May 22, 2017 ("Reply
Br.").
2 Robert Bosch GmbH is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is copied
below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief ( disputed limitations
are italicized):
1. A method for locating objects enclosed in a
medium using a detection system, comprising:
generating a measurement signal correlated with an
enclosed object;
determining a detection state based on the measurement
signal, the detection state being one of a first state indicating
that an object is detected in the medium directly adjacent to the
detection system, at least one second state indicating that no
object is detected, and a third state indicating that an object is
detected in the vicinity of the detection system but not directly
adjacent to the detection system, the determining of the
detection state comprising:
detecting local maximums of the measurement signal;
and
changing the detection state from the first state to the
third state in response to a magnitude of the measurement
signal being less than a magnitude of a previously detected
local maximum of the measurement signal by a
predetermined first percentage;
and
transmitting a state signal to a user, the state signal
indicating the determined detection state.
Independent claim 14 is directed to a measuring device comprising a
detection system configured to perform the steps of claim 1 and an output
device. Independent claim 19 is directed to a method that additionally
reqmres "detecting local minimums of the measurement signal" and
"changing the detection state from the third state to the first state in response
2
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
to the magnitude of the measurement signal remaining above a previously
detected local minimum of the measurement signal by a predetermined
second percentage." App. Br. 22-24 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 13-15, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by Sanoner. 3
2. Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Sanoner in view of Chipriano. 4
3. Claims 10-12 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Sanoner in view of Sanoner '918. 5
4. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Sanoner in view of Skultety-Betz. 6
ANALYSIS
We need to address only independent claims 1, 14, and 19 because
each of the rejections is based on the same disputed finding that Sanoner
discloses detecting local maximums and changing the detection state
from the first state to the third state in response to a magnitude of the
measurement signal being less than a magnitude of a previously detected
local maximum of the measurement signal by a predetermined percentage
(Final Act. 5; Ans. 3--4) and, specifically, to the Examiner's finding that
claim 1 is met by the steady change in a signal as Sanoner' s stud finder is
3 Sanoner et al., US 2007/0210785 Al, pub. Sept. 13, 2007 ("Sanoner").
4 Cipriano et al., US 2010/0186504 Al, pub. July 29, 2010 ("Cipriano").
5 Sanoner et al., US 2004/0000918 Al, pub. Jan. 1, 2004 ("Sanoner '918").
6 Skultety-Betz et al., US 2008/0036644 Al, pub. Feb. 14, 2008 ("Skultety-
Betz").
3
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
moved across a wall and travels across the location of a wall stud depicted in
annotated Figure 9 (Ans. 4).
{Jt:\:~~tt ~J~r~:/Jt~~f
·f.,~dj~f:-.fS\t
Figure 9 illustrates a relationship between a wall lining thickness and a
detection circuit parameter, such as voltage. Sanoner ,r 30. The Examiner
finds that the local maximums shown in Figure 9 are "all aspects of the
curve wherein it is indicated that there is an object detected, no object is
detected and an object is in the vicinity." Final Act. 5 (citing Sanoner
,r,r 46-70). The Examiner finds that the peak of any given curve represents a
state wherein the stud is in the direct path of the detector ( first state) and the
minimum points are when there is no stud in the vicinity of the detector
( second state) with the rise and fall of the signal representing the approach or
departure from the wall stud (third state), each a distinct state. Id.; Ans. 4--6.
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 2 and 4--18. App. Br. 9, 16-17. In accordance
4
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), and based upon the lack of
arguments directed to the subsidiary rejections, claims 2 and 4--18 will
stand or fall together with independent claim 1.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sanoner discloses detecting multiple local maximums of a detection
signal to determine a detection state as required by claim 1 because
Sanoner only discloses identifying a single value that represents a
maximum value of the signal during a calibration state prior to being
used to detect studs. App. Br. 10; id. at 12 ("the controller 46 of
Sanoner would merely identify a single value corresponding to the
greater of the multiple local maximums."). According to Appellants,
the detection signal used during the auto sensitivity selection step is
never used to detect studs in the wall, which is a different detection
signal. Id. at 12. Appellants further argue that Sanoner does not
disclose changing detection states in response to the measurement
signal being less than a previously detected local maximum by a
predetermined percentage. Id. at 10. Appellants contend that
Sononer's indicator LEDs illuminate progressively as the distance
between the object and device decreases and the buzzer is turned on
when the device moves over a first edge of the object in the wall. Id.
Appellants assert that "Sanoner is mostly silent with respect to how
the output of the comparator 25 is processed to determine how many
indicator LEDs 9 should be illuminated (i.e. determine a detection
state)." Id. at 13.
Regarding claim 19, Appellants similarly contend that the
Examiner erred in finding that Sanoner changes detection states with
5
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
reference to a previously detected local minimum. Id. at 14.
According to Appellants, the Examiner conflates the claimed steps of
"detecting local minimums of the measurement signal" and
"generating a measurement signal correlated with an enclosed object"
such that merely measuring a signal that includes local maximums and
minimums is inherently detecting as claimed. Id. at 15. Regarding
the change in the illumination of Sanoner' s indicator LEDs,
Appellants argue that Sanoner does not teach it is in response to a
magnitude of the detection signal above a magnitude of a previously
determined local minimum by a predetermined percentage as
"Sanoner is mostly silent with respect to how the output of the
comparator 25 is processed." Id. at 16.
The Examiner responds that Sanoner detects a state in response
to a magnitude of the measurement signal being less than a magnitude
of a previously determined local maximum explaining:
The ever changing signal depicted as a continuous curve in the
areas between peaks and valleys is the response to the
measurement signal being less than the maximum or more than
the minimum signals by a predetermined percentage because it
is the response between the two extreme conditions.
Ans. 3--4 (citing Sanoner Fig. 9, ,r,r 62---65). Regarding claim 19, the
Examiner further responds that the minimum points are when there
is no stud in the vicinity of the detector, i.e. when the detector is
equidistant between wall studs, and each of these is a distinct state.
Id. at 5-6.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants do not dispute that Sanoner
detects voltage maximums, but, rather, argue that Sanoner does not
6
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
"detect multiple local maximums of a common measurement signal."
Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis added). Appellants contend that Sanoner' s
controller "merely identifies a single value that represents a maximum
value of the detection signal during a particular interval of time." Id.
at 3. Appellants further argue that Figure 9 does not support the
Examiner's finding that an ever changing signal depicted as a
continuous curve in the areas between the peaks and valleys is the
response to the measurement signal being less than the maximum or
more than the minimum signals. Id. at 4. According to Appellants,
Figure 9 shows three detection signal waveforms corresponding to
three different wall thicknesses and provides no indication of how the
micro-controller determines what values correspond to the stud edges.
Id. Appellants do not dispute that Sanoner illuminates indicator LEDs
progressively as the device is moved over a wall, but argue that there
is no disclosure in Sanoner of the output being changed in response to
a magnitude of the detection signal being less than a magnitude of a
previously determined local maximum by a predetermined percentage.
Id. at 4--5.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and
evidence produced thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) ( cited with approval in In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's
practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner's rejections")). For the reasons stated in the Final Action
and the Answer, we are not persuaded by Appellants that the
7
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
Examiner reversibly erred in determining that claims 1 and 19 are
anticipated by Sanoner. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments of reversible
error by the Examiner because Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner's finding that Sanoner discloses in Figure 9 a "steady
change in a signal as a stud finder is moved across a wall and travels
across the location of a wall stud" with "[t]he ever changing signal
depicted as a continuous curve in the areas between peaks and
valleys" (Ans. 4). Nor do Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding
that the peaks and valleys in Sanoner' s Figure 9 "identify the state of
being directly adjacent to a wall stud and an area where there is no
wall stud, respectively" (id.). In addition, Appellants do not dispute
that Sanoner transmits a signal to the user of the state detected, e.g.
"the first state" and "the third state" recited in claims 1 and 19.
Therefore, the Examiner's finding that Sanoner's changing signal "is
the response to the measurement signal being less than the maximum
or more than the minimal signals by a predetermined percentage
because it is the response between the two extreme conditions" is
supported by the cited record in this appeal. Ans. 4; Sanoner ,r,r 62-
65, Fig. 9.
Appellants' assertion (Reply Br. 4--5) that Sanoner' s disclosure
in paragraph 52 of how its micro-controller is configured to illuminate
indicators based on an output of a comparator "does not disclose that
the output of the comparator is ever changed in response to a
magnitude of the detection signal being less than a magnitude of the
previously determined local maximum by a predetermined
8
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
percentage" is not persuasive because the changing states is confirmed
by Sanoner' s LED lights that identify the changing states of the
signals. Ans. 4; Sanoner ,r 46. The illuminated indicator LEDs
for each stage or state depends on the output level of Sanoner' s
comparator. Sanoner ,r 52. Therefore, the Examiner's finding that
Sanoner discloses this disputed claim limitation of both claims 1 and
19 is supported by the record.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants that Sanoner does
not disclose the methods of independent claims 1 and 19 because
Sanoner' s detection of multiple local maximums is not "of a common
measurement signal" (Reply Br. 3). Based on the context of
claims 1 and 19, the recited "measurement signal" is correlated with
an enclosed object, which corresponds to Sanoner' s ever changing
signal identified by the Examiner. Therefore, multiple local
maximums detected in the areas between peaks and valleys in
Sanoner' s method are encompassed by claims 1 and 19 because the
claims do not limit the location at which the local maximums are
measured. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
In sum, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 19
as anticipated by Sanoner.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
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).
9
Appeal2017-008514
Application 13/819,048
ORDER
AFFIRMED
10