Ex Parte Chandhoke et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2010

10059726 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SUNDEEP CHANDHOKE,
DAVID WHATLEY and DENISE RIEDLINGER
____________

Appeal 2009-005031
Application 10/059,726
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAY P. LUCAS, and DEBRA K.
STEPHENS Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL 1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005031
Application 10/059,726

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-49. The Appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

INVENTION
The Appellants describe the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
A user may utilize a motion control prototyping
environment application to easily and efficiently
develop/prototype a motion control sequence. For
example, the environment may provide a graphical user
interface (GUI) enabling the user to develop/prototype
the motion control sequence at a high level, by selecting
from and configuring a sequence of motion control
operations using the GUI. The graphical user interface of
the motion control prototyping environment may enable
the user to preview various aspects of the motion
performed by a motion control sequence in one or more
preview windows, e.g., a velocity profile, an acceleration
profile, position plots, etc., in advance before
commanding the motor to perform the sequence of
moves.
(Abstract.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A computer-implemented method for previewing two
or more motion control operations, the method comprising:
Appeal 2009-005031
Application 10/059,726

3
receiving user input selecting the two or more motion
control operations, wherein the motion control operations are
operable to perform motion control of a hardware device;
storing information representing the two or more motion
control operations;
displaying a first preview window for previewing
cumulative motion control performed by the two or more
motion control operations; and
displaying information in the first preview window which
visually indicates the cumulative motion control performed by
the two or more motion control operations, wherein visually
indicating the cumulative motion control performed by the two
or more motion control operations comprises visually indicating
a spatial trajectory cumulatively performed by the two or more
motion control operations.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17-34, and 39-49 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Compumotor Motion
Builder Start-up Guide and Tutorial ("Compumotor") and U.S. Patent
No. 5,781,505 to Rowland ("Rowland").
Claims 6, 14-16, and 36-38 stand rejected under 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Compumotor; Rowland; and U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2002/0067373 A1 ("Roe").
Claims 8, 11, 12, and 35 stand rejected under 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Compumotor; Rowland; and U.S. Patent No. 6,298,474
B1("Blowers").

Appeal 2009-005031
Application 10/059,726

4
ISSUE
The Examiner admits that "Compumotor fails to distinctly point out
visually indicating a spatial trajectory performed by the two or more motion
control operations." (Ans. 3-4.) Finding that "Rowland teaches previewing
spatial trajectory for a projectile from a viewpoint of an observer (Column 1
lines 60-67)" (id. at 4), the Examiner concludes that "it would have been
obvious to an artisan at the time of the invention to combine the motion
control operations of Compumotor and the spatial trajectory preview of
Rowland." (Id.) The Appellants argue "that it is improper to rely on
Rowland as a basis for rejection of the present claims." (App. Br. 9.)
Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in considering
Rowland to be analogous art.

FINDINGS OF FACT ("FFs")
1. "The [Appellants’] invention relates to the field of computer-based
motion control." (Spec. 1.) Furthermore, the Appellants describe the
particular problem with which they are involved as follows.
Motion control application development typically
has a steep learning curve. A user needs to have
specialized knowledge of motion control motors, drives,
and controllers. Programming a motion controller
requires the user to be familiar with motion control terms
and driver application programming interface (API).
This can be very daunting, especially for users who are
new to the world of motion control. Thus, it would be
desirable to provide a system and method enabling users
to develop motion control applications more easily.
(Id. at 1-2.)
Appeal 2009-005031
Application 10/059,726

5
2. Rowland describes the particular problem with which he is
involved as follows.
Systems and methods for calculating the trajectory
of a projectile traveling at supersonic speeds have
typically used acoustic-based methods to detect the
acoustic signature of the shock wave generated by the
projectile . . . .
(Col. 1, ll. 29-32.)
This calculation, however, only provides the
position, relative bearing and elevation angle of the
trajectory but no location or identification of the source
of the projectile. One way of determining the range to
the source of the projectile is by detecting the arrival time
of the muzzle blast generated when the projectile is fired.
However, complex environments, such as urban settings,
and noise suppression techniques, often make detection
of the muzzle blast impossible. Without detection of the
muzzle blast, existing projectile trajectory location
systems have been unable to locate the source of the
projectile.
(Col. 1, ll. 46-56.)

ANALYSIS
"Whether a reference in the prior art is 'analogous' is a fact question."
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Two criteria
have evolved for answering the question: "(1) whether the art is from the
same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
Appeal 2009-005031
Application 10/059,726

6
the inventor is involved." Id. at 658-59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d
436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
"A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different
field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem." Id. at 659.
Here, regarding the first criterion, the Examiner admits "that Rowland
is unrelated to the field of motion control and does not even teach a concept
of motion control operation to perform motion control of a hardware
device." (Ans. 16.)
Regarding the second criterion, the Appellants describe the particular
problem with which they are involved as enabling users to develop motion
control applications without requiring specialized knowledge of motion
control motors, drives, and controllers and familiarity with motion control
terms and driver APIs. (FF 1.) Rowland describes the particular problem
with which he is involved as locating the source of the projectile traveling at
supersonic speeds when no muzzle blast caused by firing the projectile can
be detected. (FF 2.) Comparing the two problems, we agree with the
Appellants that "Rowland pertains to an entirely different problem than the
particular problem with which the inventors in the present application were
concerned." (Appeal Br. 9.)
Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the
Examiner erred in considering Rowland to be analogous art.

Appeal 2009-005031
Application 10/059,726

7
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-49. No time for taking any
action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

REVERSED

Tkl
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN,
KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN TX 78767-0398