Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201311523322 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/523,322 09/18/2006 Jae-Myeon Lee 678-2659 (P13527) 4682 66547 7590 07/25/2013 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER LI, CE LI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2013 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 JAE-MYEON LEE, HYUN-SU HONG, KYONG-HA PARK, CHAN-GOOK PARK, and JIN-WON KIM ____________________ Appeal 2011-004507 Application 11/523,322 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004507 Application 11/523,322 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 7-9, 14, 19 and 20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to an apparatus and method for detecting steps in a personal navigation system. Claim 1, directed to an apparatus, and claim 9, directed to a method, are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for step detection in a personal navigation system, the apparatus comprising: an acceleration sensor for detecting acceleration in a movement direction and a gravity direction relative to a user and then outputting acceleration signals according to the detection result: and a moving distance measurement device for calculating sliding window summing data for the acceleration signals in the movement direction and the gravity direction, to calculate a sum of the sliding window summing data, and then detecting steps of the user by using differential sliding window slimming data to detect acceleration components, wherein a zero crossing point is detected from the differential sliding window summing data, wherein a comparison is made of a difference of a detection time between a present zero crossing point and a previous zero crossing point with a threshold value, thereby detecting the steps of the user, and wherein the threshold value is a reference time for determining whether the zero crossing point is detected according to a step of the user or a chattering of the user's body. 1 Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10-13 and 15-18 were previously cancelled. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-004507 Application 11/523,322 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Martin Levi Ladetto Aoshima US 3,414,215 US 6,813,582 B2 US 6,826,477 B2 US 7,212,943 B2 Dec. 3, 1968 Nov. 2, 2004 Nov. 30, 2004 May 1, 2007 Kappi US 2007/0005246 A1 Jan. 4, 2007 Steven Smith, The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing, 2nd ed., 277 (1999) (hereinafter, “Smith”). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a2) as being unpatentable over Levi, Smith, Martin, Aoshima, and Ladetto. Ans. 4. Claims 4, 14, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Levi, Smith, Martin, Aoshima, Ladetto, and Kappi. Ans. 6-7. OPINION In separately arguing independent claim 1, independent claim 9, and dependent claims 4, 7, 8, 14, 19 and 20, Appellants assert nonobviousness by repeating or relying upon their arguments for the patentability of claim 1. App. Br. 5-9, Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner found that Levi discloses the basic apparatus and method claimed but that “Levi does not explicitly disclose the use of a threshold value as a reference time to determining whether the zero crossing 2 We understand the Examiner’s reference to other subpargraphs (Ans. 4, 6) as inadvertent. Appeal 2011-004507 Application 11/523,322 4 point is detected according to a step of the user or chattering of a human body.” Ans. 5. The Examiner concluded, based on the combined teachings of Levi and Ladetto, that “it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Levi’s detection apparatus by using a constant time value as a reference value to detect whether the zero crossing point is caused by step or chattering.” Ans. 5-6. This is the sole point of contention raised by Appellants. App. Br. 5-7. We agree with the Examiner’s factual findings and legal analysis. Levi discusses the use of the filtered signal from the vertical accelerometer and recognizes the zero-crossings between steps, and that [s]ince there can be multiple peaks as well as zero crossings per step, some form of reset mechanism is needed to assure that only the first event is recognized. In identifying peaks, a zero crossing can be required before another peak is recognized. Similarly another peak may be required to enable recognizing another zero crossing. It is not necessary that this detection occur at some specific point during the sequence of a step, but it may occur at the same point during each step so that the interval between two successive steps is a useful measure of the time required to complete the step. Levi, col. 3, l. 66 - col. 4. ll. 1-17 (emphasis added). Such an interval, as the Examiner points out, can be seen graphically as illustrated in Figures 6 and 7 of Ladetto. Ans. 5-6, 9-10. The Examiner explained that graphical representation of Ladetto as follows: Ladetto Figures 6-7 are raw acceleration signals with noise of walking, there’s more than 2 zero-crossing points in Z signal (Figure 6), AP signal (Figure 7). Since in a noise free acceleration signal, there’s only 2 zero-crossing points between each step and the time interval between each step of human walking is about the same for a normal person. And body chattering (creates noise) always comes before the next step, Appeal 2011-004507 Application 11/523,322 5 therefore, the time interval between two consecutive foot steps. The time interval between each foot step is la[r]ger than the time interval between foot step and body chattering or the time interval between body chattering. Therefore, when the time between a previous zero crossing point and a present zero crossing point is less than a constant (a value less than or equal to the time interval between each step), then the zero crossing point is caused by chattering. When the time between a previous zero crossing point and a present zero crossing point is greater than the constant, then the zero crossing point is caused by step. Ans. 5-6. Appellants’ only response specifically addressing this reasoning articulated by the Examiner is that it fails to take into account changes in walking speed. Reply Br. 3. We do not find that this potential for a mistake detracts from the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion based on Levi and Ladetto. The Examiner’s proposed modification would predictably filter out a large amount of unwanted noise, even if, in doing so, it might, on some occasions, also filter out a portion of the actual signal. See Ans. 10. Perfection is not a prerequisite to finding a motivating benefit. It is enough that one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the proposed modification would improve the prior art in a predictable way. Absolute predictability that the substitution will be successful is not required, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In response to Appellants’ argument that Levi failed to disclose the use of an acceleration sensor for detecting acceleration in a movement and gravity direction, and then outputting detection signals, or comparing the difference of detection times between zero-crossings with a threshold value Appeal 2011-004507 Application 11/523,322 6 to determine steps (App. Br. 7), the Examiner points out that “Levi discloses the use of high-pass filtering (Col. 3, lines 51-54) to remove noise for the acceleration signals in each of the movement direction and the gravity direction, then detecting steps of the user by low-pass filtering to detect acceleration components (Col. 3, lines 54-67).” Ans. 10-11. Appellants respond in their Reply Brief that “[i]t is incorrect for the Examiner to allege that Levi teaches low-pass filtering as a necessary part of a detection step. On the contrary, Levi specifically teaches that ‘unfiltered signals may also be used without deviating from the invention.’” Reply Br. 1-2 (citing Levi, col. 3, ll. 64-65). The specific type of filtering used by Levi is not as crucial as the fact that Levi suggests using a filtering technique to remove undesirable noise from the signal. As discussed above, this suggests that there is a reasonable expectation that other filtering techniques such as those relying on a step interval as suggested by Levi (col. 4, ll. 13-18) and the Examiner (Ans. 5-6, 9-10) could similarly be used to remove unwanted noise. Such a modification amounts to the simple substitution of filtering techniques to yield nothing more than predictable results and therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. A determination of obviousness does not require the claimed invention to be expressly suggested by any one or all of the references. See, e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appeal 2011-004507 Application 11/523,322 7 Appellants argue that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. Reply Br. 1. However, the comparison proposed by the Examiner, modifying “Levi’s detection apparatus by using a constant time value as a reference value to detect whether the zero crossing point is caused by step or chattering” (Ans. 10), based on walking rate, is different from a comparison using an experimentally derived constant as is taught by Appellants’ Specification (Spec. 11-12). Moreover, since the motivation to filter out noise is disclosed in the prior art, e.g., Levi, col. 3, l. 51 - col. 4, l. 17, the desirability to do so need not be gleaned through Appellants’ invention or Specification. Finally, just because a reasoned analysis for the course of action proposed by the Examiner is not explicit in the prior art does not, without more, mean that such analysis is the product of improper hindsight or relies on official notice, as argued by Appellants. Statements articulating technical reasoning in support of combining references are not the kind of statements to which the MPEP Section on Official Notice is directed. Moreover, for completeness, we note that even if the Examiner’s statement that “filtering is a very common method/technique in signal process” was considered to be Official Notice, an adequate traverse to an Examiner’s finding of Official Notice must “contain adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the ... notice” of what is well-known to an ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). “To adequately traverse such a finding [of Official Notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” MPEP § 2144.03(C); see also 37 Appeal 2011-004507 Application 11/523,322 8 C.F.R. § 1.111(b); In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943). Appellants are challenging the statement as improper Official Notice, but have not alleged that filtering is not a “very common method/technique in signal processing.” Advisory Action, dated June 2, 2010. Indeed, both references, particularly Levi, discuss it. See, e.g., Levi, col. 3, ll. 51-67, col. 4. ll. 6, 48-53, et seq. Accordingly, Appellants have not apprised us of any flaws in the Examiner’s reasoning. We conclude that the Examiner articulated adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to support the determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Levi, Smith, Martin, Aoshima, and Ladetto to arrive at the claimed subject matter at issue. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections are 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)(1)(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation