Tsuchimoto, Hirofumi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 12, 2019

15012958 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2019)

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.
15/012,958 02/02/2016 Hirofumi Tsuchimoto 036433.03584 6442
38485 7590 09/12/2019
ARENT FOX LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
Floor 42
New York, NY 10019
EXAMINER
MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2019 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):
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HIROFUMI TSUCHIMOTO, TAKANORI HAYASHI,
KENGO SAITO, and HIROYUKI NAKAJI
____________

Appeal 2018-0079721
Application 15/012,9582
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 4–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 23,
2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 30, 2018), the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 8, 2018), and the Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed Oct. 25, 2017).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is “MURATA
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007972
Application 15/012,958

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]he present invention relates to
biological sensors that detect biological information.” Spec. ¶ 2.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. A biological sensor comprising:
a light-emitting element that emits light based on a driving
signal;
a light-receiving element that outputs a current detection
signal based on an intensity of received light including light
emitted by the light-emitting element;
an amplifying circuit configured to convert the current
detection signal into a voltage detection signal, amplify an
alternating current component of the voltage detection signal,
and output an amplified detection signal; and
a microcontroller configured to:
generate the driving signal as a pulse-form driving
signal,
generate an offset signal as a pulse-form offset
voltage that is synchronized with the pulse-form driving
signal,
apply the pulse-form offset voltage to an offset
circuit coupled to the amplifying circuit to offset a direct
current component of the voltage detection signal, and
obtain biological information based on the
amplified detection signal.
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2018-007972
Application 15/012,958

3
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 4–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Cheung.3
DISCUSSION
We are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1
because the Examiner has not established that Cheung discloses a
microcontroller configured to generate an offset signal that is synchronized
with a pulse-form driving signal.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cheung discloses a
biological sensor as claimed. See Final Act. 4–5 (citing Cheung col. 4, l.
38–col. 5, l. 5; col. 13, l. 54–col. 14, l. 2; col. 15, ll. 7–16; col. 16, ll. 5–18;
col. 24, ll. 3–39). Regarding the claimed microcontroller, the Examiner
specifically relies upon Cheung at column 13, line 54 to column 14, line 2,
and the Examiner also finds that “Cheung describes outputting two different
wavelengths intermixed within each other.” Id. at 3, 5. Further regarding
the claimed microcontroller, the Examiner finds that “Cheung discloses
removing an offset of the signal, gaining up another portion of the signal,
and then feeding both into the output in real time. Therefore, these signals
are synchronized with each other by definition since they are ‘in step’ with
one another.” Ans. 5 (citing Cheung col. 16, ll. 5–18). The Examiner
further finds,
Cheung discloses (col. 14, lines 22–39; col. 14, line 58-col. 15,
line 6) specifically that this arrangement is used for cancellation
of interference noise. It is noted that the open-ended language of
the claim (a “biological sensor comprising”) merely requires that
an offset signal is provided that is synchronized with driving

3 Cheung et al., US 5,259,381, iss. Nov. 9, 1993.
Appeal 2018-007972
Application 15/012,958

4
signal, not that the offset signal can’t be first removed and then
added into the signal, as in Cheung.
Id. at 7.
We are persuaded of error because we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has failed to explain how Cheung discloses a microcontroller
configured to provide a driving signal that is synchronized with an offset
signal. Reply Br. 4.
Cheung discloses a microcomputer 16 that is used “to produce current
pulses at a 960 Hz repetition rate” to drive LEDs 40 and 42. Cheung col. 13,
ll. 54–57. The LEDs “respond to the current pulses by producing
corresponding light pulses transmitted through the finger to detector 38[,
which] produces a signal that includes information about the pulsatile
response of the finger to the red and infrared wavelength light, intermixed at
the 960 Hz LED pulse repetition rate.” Id. at col. 13, l. 64–col. 14, l. 2.
Cheung then describes that the signal from the detector 38 passes through an
I/O circuit in which the signal is amplified. Id. at col. 14, ll. 22–39. These
amplified signals are input to lowpass filters to remove high-frequency
noise. Id. at col. 14, ll. 58–60. The filtered signals “are next prepared for
conversion and transmission of the microcomputer 16.” Id. at col. 15, ll. 7–
9. Cheung discloses that:
Accordingly, an input signal received from each filter 96 and 98
includes both the AC and DC components discussed above. The
programmable subtractors 100 remove a substantial offset
portion of the baseline component of each signal and the
programmable gain amplifiers 102 gain-up the remaining signal
for conversion by A/D converter 106. A digital reconstruction
of the original signal is then produced by the microcomputer,
which through the use of digital feedback information removes
the gain and adds the offset voltages back to the signal.
Appeal 2018-007972
Application 15/012,958

5
Id. at col. 16, ll. 7–18. Cheung discloses that “the values for the offset
subtraction voltage, gain, and driver currents” are maintained “at levels
appropriate to produce optimal A/D converter 106 resolution.” Id. at col. 16,
ll. 19–22. Finally, Cheung discloses that the offset voltage is increased or
decreased based on “an offset code” that is related to “the level of the signal
received from convertor 106.” Id. at col. 16, ll. 45–52.
Absent from the aforementioned disclosure in Cheung is any express
disclosure of the relationship between the driving signals for the LEDs 40
and 42 and the offset voltage. Regarding this relationship, the Final Action
indicates only that “Cheung describes outputting two different wavelengths
intermixed with each other.” Final Act. 3. But these intermixed signals are
the detection signals, and the Examiner does not explain how the
intermixing of these detection signals shows that the driving signal and
offset signal are synchronized. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that
“Cheung discloses removing an offset of the signal, gaining up another
portion of the signal, and then feeding both into the output in real time.”
Ans. 5 (citing Cheung col. 16, ll. 5–18). However, the Examiner does not
explain adequately how this provides the claimed relationship between the
driving signal and the offset signal. Rather, this portion of Cheung discusses
removing offsets from the detection signals after they have been filtered.
Based on the foregoing, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has failed to establish that Cheung’s driving signals are synchronized with
Cheung’s offset signals. Accordingly, we are persuaded of reversible error
and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we do
not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4–10.
Appeal 2018-007972
Application 15/012,958

6
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1 and 4–10.

REVERSED