Ex Parte Druml et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

14556540 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
14/556,540 12/01/2014 Norbert Druml SPLP138US 1068
51092 7590 09/29/2017
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
KRETZER, CASEY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
docketing @ eschweilerlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORBERT DRUML, ARMIN KRIEG,
MARKUS DIELACHER, ROBERT LOBNIK, and
MICHAEL MARK
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ application relates to a time of flight (TOF) circuit in a
transceiver device that emits a modulated light transmit signal for
transmitting an access request to an access control device, and receives a
modulated light receive signal for use in establishing a wireless transmission
channel between the transceiver device and the access control device. Spec.
|| 22—28. The TOF circuit is also capable of determining distance
information by carrying out a TOF measurement. Spec. 145. Claims 16
and 19, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter:
16. An access control device comprising:
a time of flight circuit configured to determine distance
information of a distance between the access control device and
a peripheral device, or to receive a modulated light receive signal
comprising distance information related to a distance between
the access control device and the peripheral device; and
a control module configured to allow establishing a
transmission channel between the access control device and the
peripheral device based on the distance information.
19. A transmitter device, comprising:
a control module configured to control a transmission of a
modulated light transmit signal by a time of flight emitter circuit,
wherein the modulated light transmit signal comprises load data
to be transmitted.
2
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kim
Schoepp
Varshneya
Albuquerque
Park
Hamilton
Smith
US 9,021,139 B1 Apr. 28,2015
US 2009/0072996 A1 Mar. 19, 2009
US 2009/0142053 A1 Jun. 4, 2009
US 2010/0271614 A1 Oct. 28, 2010
US 2015/0044970 A1 Feb. 12, 2015
US 2015/0296546 A1 Oct. 15, 2015
US 2015/0365801 A1 Dec. 17, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing
to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Albuquerque.
Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Albuquerque, and Kim.
Claims 6, 10, 11,21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Park, Albuquerque, and Smith.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Albuquerque, Smith, and Hamilton.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Albuquerque, and Hamilton.
Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Albuquerque and Park.
3
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
ANALYSIS
The Enablement Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 for failing to comply with the
enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Final Act. 5—7.
Specifically, the Examiner finds it is unclear how the “modulated light
receive signal” and “reference modulation light receive signal” recited in
claim 21 are used to determine distance information. Final Act. 5—6.
Regarding claim 22, which recites “the reference modulation light receive
signal is received from an external light source,” the Examiner finds it is
unclear how two signals originating from different sources can be used to
determine distance. Final Act. 6—7. Appellants contend there is enabling
support for claims 21 and 22 in paragraphs 46 and 116 of the Specification.
App. Br. 3^4. We are persuaded by Appellants arguments.
Regarding claim 21, paragraph 46 of the Specification describes a
time of flight (TOF) emitter circuit in a transceiver device that generates
multiple light pulses at a modulated frequency. The light pulses are
reflected by an access control device and “received by the TOF sensor
circuit (e.g. the TOF PMD [photonic mixing device] sensor pixels) which
may each measure the phase delay (or phase shift) of the reflected received
light signal with respect to a reference modulation signal (e.g. a modulation
control signal or the transmitted light signal).” Further, the phase delay
between the received light signal and the reference modulation signal can be
represented by a correlation function, which can be used to determine the
distance between the access control device and the transceiver device. Spec.
H 46-47. We find this description provides an outline of how the invention
of claim 21 operates, and the Examiner has not shown why it would require
undue experimentation to practice the claimed invention in view of this
4
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
description. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736—37 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(“Enablement is not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation . . .
. However, experimentation needed to practice the invention must not be
undue experimentation”).
Regarding claim 22, the Specification describes an embodiment,
illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, where a TOF emitter circuit is located in a
transmitter device 500, and a time of flight module is located in a receiver
device 600, and the TOF emitter circuit sends a modulated light signal that is
received by the time of flight module. Spec. 103—104, 109—110. The
Specification further describes that a processing module 625 in the receiver
device 600 can “determine distance information of a distance between the
receiver device and an access control device based on the modulated light
receive signal and a reference modulation light receive signal,” where “[t]he
reference modulation light receive signal may be received from an external
light source,” and “the external light source may be transmitted by a light
source or a TOF emitter circuit.” Spec. 115—116.
In other words, the reference modulation signal and the modulated
light signal can both be sent by the TOF emitter circuit in transmitter device
500 and be received by receiver device 600 for use in determining distance.
We thus find error in the Examiner’s finding, with respect to claim 22, that it
is unclear how distance can be determined based on a modulated light
receive signal and a reference modulation light receive signal received from
different sources. Final Act. 6—7. Claim 22 does not require the modulated
light receive signal and the reference modulation light receive signal be
received from different sources, and, as shown above, the Specification
describes an embodiment where the two signals are in fact received from the
same source.
5
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
We thus find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21 and 22 as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The Obviousness Rejections
Claims 1—15 and 19—22
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 8, 19, and 20 together as a
group. See App. Br. 4—10. Appellants do not provide specific separate
arguments for dependent claims 2—7, 9—15, 21, and 22. See App. Br. 4—12.
Accordingly, we deem claims 1—15 and 19—22 to be argued together as a
group, and we select claim 19 as the representative claim.1
Appellants contend one would not have been motivated to modify
Park to include a time of flight circuit in view of Albuquerque because it
would needlessly increase the time for establishing a connection between
two devices in Park and would unnecessarily increase the manufacturing
costs, and because such modification makes impermissible use of hindsight.
App. Br. 5—7. Appellants also contend Albuquerque is non-analogous art to
the claimed invention. App. Br. 7—10. Appellants’ arguments do not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
First, regarding Appellants’ arguments against modifying Park’s
method for establishing a connection between two devices, we focus on the
language of claim 19. The body of claim 19 recites, in its entirety: “a
control module configured to control a transmission of a modulated light
transmit signal by a time of flight emitter circuit, wherein the modulated
1 “When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued
as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim
from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of
rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected
claim alone.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
6
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
light transmit signal comprises load data to be transmitted.” Notably, there
is no recitation of establishing a connection between two devices. Rather,
claim 19 solely relates to controlling the transmission of a modulated light
signal by a time of flight circuit. The Examiner’s rejection relies on
Albuquerque for teaching a time of flight circuit that transmits a modulated
light signal (see Final Act. 9; Ans. 30), and thus the Examiner’s reliance on
Park in the obviousness rejection is superfluous with respect to claim 19.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments that one would not have combined
Albuquerque’s LIDAR system with Park’s method for establishing a
connection (see App. Br. 4—7) are not persuasive, because the Examiner’s
reliance on Albuquerque suffices for us to affirm the rejection of claim 19.
See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“[T]he answer specified a
rejection on Whitney in view of Harth and if the board found it unnecessary
to rely on Harth in sustaining that rejection . . . that does not amount to
rejection on a new ground.”).
Second, we are also not persuaded by Appellants’ non-analogous art
argument. Again, we focus on the language of claim 19, which is drawn to a
transmitter device with a control module for controlling the transmission of a
modulated light signal by a time of flight circuit. The thrust of Appellants’
argument, however, is aimed at Albuquerque’s alleged difference from the
art of pairing devices and establishing a connection between them. See App.
Br. 7—10. As made clear by the language of claim 19, the field of endeavor
of the claimed invention is not establishing a transmission channel, but
transmitting a modulated light signal by a time of flight circuit.
Albuquerque is within this field of endeavor because Albuquerque discloses
a LIDAR system that outputs a modulated optical signal that can be used to
7
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
generate data such as “range calculation, speed, characterization of the
targeted object, or the like.” See Albuquerque, Tflf 26, 30.
Appellants’ arguments discussed supra are, therefore, not persuasive
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19, and claims 1—15 and 20—21
which we group therewith.
Although Appellants present an additional argument for independent
claims 1 and 8—namely, that Park and Albuquerque fails to disclose a
modulated light transmit signal that comprises information (App. Br. 10—
11)—we are not persuaded by this argument because, as mentioned above,
Albuquerque discloses transmitting a modulated light signal. Further,
Appellants admit Albuquerque’s modulated light signal comprises
information: “the optical signals provided by the SOI-based LIDAR
transmitter as controlled by the transmitter and received by the receiver
provide significant amounts of information . . . such as for speed,
characterization of targeted objects, etc. (see, e.g., Albuquerque at
1 [0027]).” Moreover, Albuquerque discloses an “electrical (‘data’) input
signal to modulator 26-1.. . provided by encoder 25-1. . . . The modulated
output signal is thereafter collimated by an output integral lens 28-1 and is
launched into ‘free space’ . . . toward a designated target.” Albuquerque, 1
30 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1—15 and 19—21.
Claims 16—18
Regarding independent claim 16, Appellants contend the combination
of Park and Albuquerque fails to disclose “a control module configured to
allow establishing a transmission channel between the access control device
8
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
and the peripheral device based on the distance information.” App. Br. 12—
13. Appellants also contend Albuquerque is not analogous art. App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Park describes sending configuration information regarding available
wireless communication methods from a first device to a second device via
infrared communication, and, after the second device accepts one of the
available wireless communication methods, connecting and transmitting data
via the accepted method. See Park, Abstract; 172. Park further describes,
with respect to infrared communication, “data transmission is impossible
when the signal transmission distance exceeds about 10m.” Park, 174. The
fact that Park’s infrared communication cannot occur at a distance greater
than 10 meters, and thus that a short range wireless connection cannot be
established in Park’s system at a greater distance than 10 meters, we find,
suggests determining the distance between two devices before attempting to
establish a short range wireless connection.
Appellants’ argue (App. Br. 13) the Examiner’s statement regarding
Park that “[w]hen the distance is over 10 m, one of ordinary skill in the art. .
. would have found it obvious that no communication would be established”
(Final Act. 24) actually supports Appellants’ position. That is, “[i]n Park,
communication is not possible over 10 m, thus not only is there no teaching
of the recited feature (‘a control module configured to allow establishing a
transmission channel. . . based on the distance information’), but also no
motivation to include such a feature.” We disagree with Appellants’
interpretation of the Park reference. Park’s system is intended to actually
establish a connection (see Park, Abstract), but can only do so within 10
meters. See Park, 174. Thus, we find Park suggests determining a distance
between two devices because whether a wireless connection can be
9
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
established is dependent on distance in Park. Ans. 28. Further, we note that
claim 16 does not require any particular distance information, just that the
transmission channel is established based on some distance information.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
combination fails to disclose the claim 16 limitation of “a control module
configured to allow establishing a transmission channel between the access
control device and the peripheral device based on the distance information.”
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ non-analogous art
argument, which references the non-analogous art argument discussed above
regarding claim 19 (App. Br. 13). Claim 16 relates to using a time of flight
circuit to determine the distance between devices and then establish a
transmission channel based on the distance. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Albuquerque teaches a time of flight circuit for determining
distance. Final Act. 23. Further, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found Albuquerque’s teaching useful for determining distance
between devices, and it thus “logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering” one of the problems addressed by claim
16. See In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Therefore, we find Albuquerque to be reasonably pertinent to the
claimed invention. Appellants’ argument regarding whether Albuquerque
would have been reasonably pertinent focuses solely on whether
Albuquerque is related to device pairing for communication purposes (see
App. Br. 8—10), and neglects the broader scope of claim 16 which includes
determining distance between devices, and is therefore not persuasive.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
16, and claims 17 and 18 not specifically argued separately.
10
Appeal 2017-005238
Application 14/556,540
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21
and 22.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1-22.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1—22.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11