Ex Parte GOTSCHLICH et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13526705 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/526,705 06/19/2012
122541 7590
Harrity & Harrity, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
Suite 600
Fairfax, VA 22030
09/27/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin GOTSCHLICH
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.
0096-0038 6933
EXAMINER
PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
docket@harrityllp.com
mpick@harrity llp .com
ptomail @harrity llp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN GOTSCHLICH, JOSEF PRAINSACK,
and MICHAEL MARK
Appeal2018-002719
Application 13/526, 705 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-23, and 25-28, which are all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Infineon Technologies AG as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002719
Application 13/526,705
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to imaging systems that detect,
recognize, or track objects in a predetermined area. Spec. ,r 9. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an emitter to emit a light pulse;
an image sensor to detect whether an object is within a
preselected area based on receiving a reflection of the light
pulse; and
a controller to:
recognize, when an object is detected within the
preselected area, whether the detected object is a human
body part;
select an operating mode associated with the
emitter,
a first operating mode being selected when
no object is detected in the preselected area,
a second operating mode being selected
when an object is detected in the preselected area
and when the detected object is not recognized as
the human body part, and
a third operating mode being selected when
an object is detected in the preselected area and
when the detected object is recognized as being the
human body part; and
cause the emitter to operate in the selected
operating mode by adjusting at least one of:
an illumination time of the light pulse,
a duty cycle of the light pulse,
a peak power of the light pulse, or
a modulation frequency of the light pulse.
2
Appeal2018-002719
Application 13/526,705
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1--4, 6-23, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Gervais et al. (US 8,907,894 B2; Dec. 9, 2014)
and Busse et al. (US 2011/0098868 Al; Apr. 28, 2011). Final Act. 3-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief . We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Gervais and Busse teaches or suggests a controller to "recognize, when an
object is detected within the preselected area, whether the detected object is
a human body part" (the "recognize" limitation) and "a second operating
mode being selected when an object is detected in the preselected area and
when the detected object is not recognized as the human body part," (the
"second operating mode" limitation) as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7. In
particular, Appellants argue Gervais teaches an imaging sensor that detects
the velocity of any object, including a user's finger or pencil, in a
predetermined region. App. Br. 8-9 ( citing Gervais Fig. 4, 8:42--44, 8:46-
51 ). According to Appellants, Gervais does not determine what type of
3
Appeal2018-002719
Application 13/526,705
object is detected, let alone whether the detected object is a human body
part, because this is irrelevant to the velocity determination. Id.
Accordingly, Appellants contend Gervais does not disclose the "recognize"
limitation. Id.
Appellants also contend Gervais does not suggest the device operates
differently depending on the type of object detected, and in particular is
silent regarding operating differently when the object is a human body part,
such as a finger. Id. Accordingly, Appellants contend Gervais does not
suggest the "second operating mode" limitation.
Appellants acknowledge Busse teaches identifying an object in a
monitoring area and entering a low power, or standby, mode when an object
is detected in the area. App. Br. 10 (citing Busse ,r,r 78, 83, 84). However,
Appellants contend Busse does not suggest determining whether the detected
object is a human body part and, therefore, does not suggest the "recognize"
or "second operating mode" limitations. Id. at 10-11.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Busse teaches control operation
algorithm 70 and result comparison 80 recognize and distinguish between
human body parts passing through or approaching a region of interest. Ans.
11 ( citing Busse ,r,r 72, 80, 98). Appellants respond that the cited passages
merely mention pedestrians interacting with the sensor without suggesting
determining whether a detected object is a human body part. Reply Br. 4-5.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Busse teaches
comparing detected motion sequences with stored motion sequences to
determine whether the detected motion should initiate control of an external
device. Busse ,r 98. Busse specifically teaches examplary motion sequences
such as "a kick of a foot when approaching a vehicle tailgate or a waving
4
Appeal2018-002719
Application 13/526,705
with a hand in front of a vehicle door to open it." Id. In other words, Busse
teaches comparing a detected motion with a saved motion sequence to
determine whether the detected motion constitutes a human body part, such
as a foot or hand, moved in a particular manner. We agree with the
Examiner that Busse, therefore, teaches or suggests "recognize[ing], when
an object is detected within the preselected area, whether the detected object
is a human body part." Appellants do not specifically address this cited
passage of Busse in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 4-5.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Gervais and Busse. We also sustain the rejection of
independent claims 10, 19, and 26, for which Appellants rely on the same
arguments. See App. Br. 11. We also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-18, 20-23, 25, 27, and 28, for which Appellants rely on
the same arguments. See id.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1--4, 6-23,
and 25-28.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5