Ex Parte Dahl et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2019

14125908 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/125,908 02/04/2014
58766 7590
Beyer Law Group LLP
P. 0. Box 51887
Palo Alto, CA 94303-1887
05/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tobias Gulden Dahl
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.
ELP1P019 3848
EXAMINER
LU,WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2019 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):
USPTOmail@beyerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOBIAS GULDEN DAHL and CATO SYVERSRUD 1
Appeal2018-007852
Application 14/125,908
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A portable electronic device comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit ultrasonic
signals at a first transmission
power,
a receiver for receiving ultrasonic signals
reflected from an input object, and
a processor for processing received ultrasonic
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Elliptic Laboratories
AS. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-007852
Application 14/125,908
signals to determine an input to the device, wherein the
device is configured to continue transmitting ultrasonic
signals at a second, lower, transmission power in the event
that the device determines that a reflection from an object
other than the input object meets a predetermined criterion.
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
Claims 1-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Langereis et al. (US 2011/0003614 Al, published Jan. 6,
2011) ("Langereis"), in view of Hong et al. (US 2010/0181988 Al,
published July 22, 2010) ("Hong").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9.
Appellants argue independent claim 1 recites:
a processor for processing received ultrasonic signals to
determine an input to the device, wherein the device is
configured to continue transmitting ultrasonic signals at a
second, lower, transmission power.
App. Br. 4 ("the disputed limitations").
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br."), filed
May 12, 2017; the Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed Feb. 9, 2018; the Final
Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed Aug. 22, 2016, and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans."), mailed Oct. 10, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-007852
Application 14/125,908
The Examiner acknowledges that Langereis does not teach the
disputed limitations (see Final Act. 4). The Examiner's rejection cites to
Hong's paragraphs 26, 26, 28, 32, and 46-48 for teaching the disputed
limitations. Final Act. 4; Ans. 8-9.
Appellants argue:
the use of the motion sensor of Hong in a "low power
mode" does not necessitate a lower transmission power as the
Examiner alleges.
Firstly, the Examiner points to paragraph [0028] and
alleges that "the motion sensor referred to in these paragraphs
may be an ultrasonic sensor as discussed in paragraph 32 of
Hong." This is a misreading of Hong. Paragraph [0032] of
Hong states that "The motion sensor 120 [ ... ] may include an
ultrasonic sensor" - this is not the same thing as the motion
sensor being an ultrasonic sensor. The motion sensor taught by
Hong contains a number of other components that may or may
not be affected by a variation in the clock frequency.
In any case, there is absolutely no disclosure in Hong of a
rate at which ultrasonic signals are transmitted being in any
way linked to the clock frequency. The clock is only disclosed
as being related to the controller 180 (see paragraph [0039]),
where a higher clock frequency is provided to the controller
when it is running in its "motion recognition activation mode"
than in its "motion recognition deactivation mode" in order to
drive the appropriate application running on the controller ( see
paragraph [0027]). These are modes of the controller 180,
which is separate to the motion sensor 120 (see Figure 1) - the
clock is not used by the motion sensor 120.
Reply. Br. 2.
Appellants also argue:
In Hong, the total power consumption of the device (i.e., the
combination of the elements shown in Figure 1) may be reduced by
3
Appeal2018-007852
Application 14/125,908
reducing the rate of operations as the Examiner suggests, but it does
not follow from the teaching of Hong that the transmission power of
any ultrasonic transmissions made by the motion sensor is affected in
anyway.
Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the cited portions of
Hong coincides with that of Appellants. In particular, the Examiner has not
established, and we do not find readily, how the cited portions of Hong teach
the disputed limitations. To affirm the Examiner on this record would
require considerable speculation on our part. We decline to engage in
speculation.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of
Langereis make up for the deficiency noted above in the rejection of the
independent claim.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection cites insufficient evidence to support
the finding that Langereis and Hong collectively teach the claimed "wherein
the device is configured to continue transmitting ultrasonic signals at a
second, lower, transmission power." Ans. 8.
Although Appellants make other arguments in the Briefs, we do not
address them because we find this argument is dispositive of the appeal.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and the corresponding dependent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
4