10898584 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Gobush

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 2013

10898584 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

MOD AP 1 H 10 W Ple Th PTOL-90A (Rev PLICATION NO. 0/898,584 ANIFY & KIN 55 THOMAS ASHINGTON ase find be e time perio .06/08) FILING 07 G PROFESS JEFFERSO , DC 20007 low and/or d for reply, UNITED _________ DATE /26/2004 IONAL COR N STREET, attached an if any, is set STATES PAT ____________ FIRST NAMED WILL PORATION N.W., STE. 4 Office com in the attach ENT AND T ___________ INVENTOR IAM GOBUS 00 municatio ed commun UNI U.S Addre RADEMARK ___________ H n concernin ication. TED STATE . Patent and T ss : COMMISSION P.O. Box 145 Alexandria www.uspto OFFICE ____________ ATTORNEY E ART UNIT 3714 MAIL DATE 03/25/2013 g this appl S DEPARTM rademark Of ER FOR PATEN 0 , Virginia 22313 .gov ___________ DOCKET NO. 20002041 XAMINER PAPER DELIVER Pa ication or p ENT OF CO fice TS -1450 ____________ 9 NUMBER Y MODE per roceeding. MMERCE _______ UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WILLIAM GOBUSH ____________________ Appeal 2010-011185 Application 10/898,584 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011185 Application 10/898,584 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 and 26-38. Claim 25 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to an apparatus and methods for determining the kinematics of golf objects. Claim 1 and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for determining golf club and golf ball kinematics, comprising: a RFID1 reader operatively connected to a housing; a golf club including a RFID tag wherein the RFID reader is capable of communicating with the RFID tag to automatically identify the golf club; and a camera for acquiring an image of the golf club in motion in order to determine the kinematic characteristics of the golf club; a processor for providing a comparison of the kinematic characteristics of at least two golf clubs in motion, wherein the comparison includes at least two properties of each of the at least two golf clubs. 1 Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). Spec. 10, l. 24. Appeal 2010-011185 Application 10/898,584 3 14. A method for determining the kinematics of a golf object, comprising the steps of: a) storing unique identifiers for a plurality of golf objects; b) communicating with a RFID tag included with a first golf object; c) receiving a unique identifier from the RFID tag; d) automatically identifying the golf object based on the received unique identifier; e) acquiring an image of the golf object in motion in order to determine the kinematic characteristics of the golf object; f) repeating steps a) through e) with a second golf object; and g) providing a comparison of the kinematic characteristics of the first and second golf objects, wherein the comparison includes at least two properties of each of the first and second golf objects. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Sutphen Whitesmith US 6,366,205 B1 US 6,577,238 B1 Apr. 2, 2002 Jun. 10, 2003 Ueda US 2004/0209698 A1 Oct. 21, 2004 REJECTIONS Appellant seeks review of the following rejections: Claims 1-8, 13-16, 24, 34, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sutphen and Ueda. Appeal 2010-011185 Application 10/898,584 4 Claims 1-24 and 26-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whitesmith and Ueda.2 ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1-8, 13-16, 24, 34, and 38 based on Sutphen and Ueda Independent claim 1 recites “a processor for providing a comparison of the kinematic characteristics of at least two golf clubs in motion.” Claims App’x. Independent claims 14 and 24 both call for “providing a comparison of the kinematic characteristics of” two or more golf objects3, and independent claim 38 calls for “providing a recommendation” between at least two golf objects “based on a comparison of . . . the kinematic characteristics of each golf object.” Id. Therefore, each of the independent claims calls for comparing the kinematic characteristics of at least two golf objects. In rejecting these claims, the Examiner finds that Sutphen discloses using an RFID reader and tag in connection with a golf club but fails to disclose comparing the kinematic characteristics of two golf objects. Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that Ueda discloses a golf training device using cameras to acquire images to determine kinematic characteristics “and how the motions of the clubs are compared with one another.” Id. (citing Ueda, paras. [0029] through [0034]). The Examiner concludes that it would have 2 Appellant mistakenly identified claim 25 as subject to this ground of rejection; however, claim 25 is cancelled. App. Br. 10, Claims App’x; see also Ans. 2, 8. 3 Appellant states that a golf object may include any object known to those skilled in the art, such as a golf ball, golf bags, golf shoes, golf ball boxes, and golf ball pallets. App. Br. 7 (as used herein, “App. Br.” refers to the Substitute Appeal Brief Dec. 8, 2009); see also Spec. 38, ll. 23-24. Appeal 2010-011185 Application 10/898,584 5 been obvious to compare data retrieved on a golfer with previous data retrieved for the same golfer because paragraph [0010] of Ueda states it is meaningless to compare a professional golfer’s swing and an average golfer’s swing. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner then concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Ueda with Sutphen’s detection system “because the combination of both systems will help aide a golfer’s game as means of improving his or her gameplay.” Ans. 5. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of Ueda is flawed because the reference, taken alone or in combination with Sutphen, does not disclose comparing kinematic characteristics of two different clubs. App. Br. 12. We agree with Appellant. Ueda discloses a system in which numeric data obtained from images taken of a golfer’s swing is compared to ideal values or judging data that is input in advance to diagnose the golfer’s swing. Ueda, paras. [0030] and [0076]. As such, Ueda does not disclose comparing the kinematic characteristics of two or more golf objects such as golf balls or clubs. The Examiner’s determination that paragraph [0010] of Ueda suggests it would have been obvious to compare two sets of data from the same golfer is also erroneous. Paragraph [0010] merely states that comparing the swings of professional and average golfers is meaningless because these swings are fundamentally different in their potentials. There is simply no suggestion of comparing a golfer’s swing data to his or her previous data. As noted supra, Ueda discloses comparing a golfer’s swing data to ideal values. Appeal 2010-011185 Application 10/898,584 6 In addition, paragraph [0138] of Ueda does not state that six different clubs are used for comparison with one another to determine kinematics, contrary to the statement on page 20 of the Examiner’s Answer. Instead, paragraph [0138] of Ueda indicates that as an example of the invention (see also Ueda, paras. [0129] and [0130]), numerical data obtained from photographed swing images of six golfers was compared with the ideal values. Thus, each golfer’s data was individually compared to the ideal values to achieve a diagnosis of each swing. There was no comparison of one of the golfer’s data to the data of another golfer, let alone a comparison of the kinematic characteristics of at least two golf objects. For these reasons, the Examiner’s determination that Ueda discloses or suggests comparing the kinematic characteristics of two different golf objects, as called for in claims 1, 14, 24, and 38, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We thus do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 14, 24, and 38—and of claims 2-8, 13, 15, 16, and 34 depending therefrom—under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sutphen and Ueda. Rejection of claims 1-24 and 26-38 based on Whitesmith and Ueda In rejecting claims 1-24 and 26-38, the Examiner indicates that Whitesmith (applied here in place of Sutphen) discloses using an RFID reader and tag in connection with a golf club and again relies on Ueda as suggesting it would have been obvious to compare the kinematic characteristics of two or more golf objects. Ans. 8-9. Because we disagree that Ueda suggests it would have been obvious to compare the kinematic characteristics of two or more golf objects, as discussed supra, we cannot Appeal 2010-011185 Application 10/898,584 7 sustain the rejection of claims 1-24 and 26-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Whitesmith and Ueda. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-24 and 26- 38. REVERSED Klh