Ex Parte Gruben et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 9, 2012

11231644 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KREG G. GRUBEN and MATTHEW W. SCHMIDT
____________________

Appeal 2010-000174
Application 11/231,644
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000174
Application 11/231,644

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kreg G. Gruben and Matthew W. Schmidt (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Shields (US 2005/0209049 A1,
pub. Sep. 22, 2005) and of claims 21 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shields. The Examiner has withdrawn claims 18, 22, 23,
25, and 26 from consideration. Claims 27 and 28 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The claims on appeal are directed to “a device for training human
limb motion and in particular to a device that trains a user to activate
muscles to produce a desired direction of force.” Spec. para. [0003]. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A training apparatus comprising:
a support for supporting a user;
a limb-engaging surface receiving a limb of the user
when the user is supported in the user support;
a multi-axis force sensor holding the limb engaging
surface with respect to the user support; and
a controller communicating with the multi-axis force
sensor to measure a direction of applied force over a range of
different angles applied by the user on the limb-engaging
surface in response to instruction to the user to use the limb to
apply force in an instructed direction, the controller outputting
to the user an indication of the direction of applied force.
Appeal 2010-000174
Application 11/231,644

3
OPINION
The dispositive issue presented in this appeal is whether Shields
discloses a training apparatus comprising a “multi-axis force sensor” as
called for in claim 1. The Examiner found that Shields’ force sensor 315 is a
“multi-axis force sensor” and that Shields’ controller 100 communicates
with force sensor 315 to measure a direction of applied force over a range of
different angles. Ans. 4, 8; App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1-3.
A multi-axis force sensor is one that measures force simultaneously in
the directions of two or more axes. See, e.g., Spec. para. [0056] (describing
a multidirectional force sensor providing force measurements using two
perpendicular bi-directional linear force sensors, such as strain gauges or the
like); Reply Br. 2. For the reasons set forth by Appellants on pages 7 and 8
of the Appeal Brief and pages 1-3 of the Reply Brief, we agree with
Appellants that Shields does not describe, either expressly or inherently, a
“multi-axis force sensor” as claimed.
Shields discloses that “the axial (compressive) and tangential (shear)
loads that are exerted on the skeletal system are derived from the force
sensor measurements” (para. [0009]), the axial and tangential loads exerted
upon the skeletal system of a system operator “are computed from a
horizontal force-sensing device” (para. [0010]), and the processor 105 uses
the position or angle data from position or angle sensor 305A and 305B and
force data from force sensing device 315 to determine the shear and
compressive loads that are being exerted on the bones of the system operator
(para. [0036]). While Shields’ processor determines/derives/computes
forces along different axes (i.e., shear and compressive loads) using force
Appeal 2010-000174
Application 11/231,644

4
and angle or position data, Shields gives no indication that the force sensing
device 315 measures force along more than one axis.
Further, the Examiner has not set forth any technical reasoning
explaining why Shields’ force sensing device 315 necessarily must be a
multi-axis force sensor, so as to establish anticipation under the principles of
inherency.1 Quite to the contrary, the Examiner seemingly acknowledges
that Shields’ disclosure is insufficient to establish that the force sensing
device 315 inherently is a multi-axis force sensor. See Ans. 9 (stating “it
seems plausible that a multi-axis force sensor may be used in the Shields
device”).
We thus find that the Examiner failed to establish that Shields
discloses, either expressly or under principles of inherency, a training
apparatus comprising a “multi-axis force sensor” as called for in claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and dependent
claims 2-17, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Shields.
In rejecting claims 21 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner
relied on the erroneous finding that Shields discloses a multi-axis force
sensor, and has not articulated any reason why it might have been obvious to
modify Shields’ system to provide a multi-axis force sensor. Accordingly,
we also reverse the rejection of claims 21 and 24 as unpatentable over
Shields.

1 “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Appeal 2010-000174
Application 11/231,644

5
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

MP