Ex Parte KODownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 12, 201713693390 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/693,390 12/04/2012 Dong-Ik KO TI-71700 9534 23494 7590 07/14/2017 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER ABRAHAM, SAMANTHA K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/14/2017 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DONG-IK KO Appeal 2016-0007321 Application 13/693,390 Technology Center 3600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINDA E. HORNER, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Texas Instruments Incorporated (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wachter (US 5,745,437, issued April 28, 1998) and Dishal (US 3,783,397, issued January 1, 1974). Final Office Action (December 3, 2014) (hereinafter “Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Texas Instruments Incorporated is an applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Appellant names Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party interest. Appeal Brief 3 (April 30, 2015) (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal 2016-000732 Application 13/693,390 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a “Time of Flight sensor interference rejection.” Spec. 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A method of interference rejection in a Time of Flight (TOF) measurement system including a transmitted infrared illumination modulating frequency comprising the steps of: receiving all ambient infrared illumination; measuring the modulation frequencies of said received infrared illumination; comparing duration of said measured modulation frequencies to a preset threshold; adjusting the transmitted infrared illumination modulating frequency of the Time of Flight measurement system if the preset threshold is exceeded. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix). ANAFYSIS The Examiner finds that Wachter teaches the claimed method of interference rejection in a Time of Flight (TOF) measurement system except for the “comparing” and “adjusting” steps recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner determines that Dishal teaches these missing steps and that it would have been obvious to modify the method of Wachter with the teachings of Dishal to result in the claimed method. Id. (citing Dishal, col. 2,1. 65 -col. 3,1. 27). In particular, the Examiner explains that Dishal “teaches a transmitted frequency is adjusted to a value that is offset from a plurality of detected values [the ambient vales of Wachter].” Id. at 3 (Examiner finding that “Dishal teaches the transmitted frequency (strongest 2 Appeal 2016-000732 Application 13/693,390 signal) is offset (shifted to a special frequency) from the plurality of received signals”). Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding Dishal teaches the claimed “adjusting” step. Appeal Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellant argues that Dishal teaches applying a generated wave offset signal to a receiver, and “fails to teach adjustment of a transmitted frequency” as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellant further argues that “a reference disclosing a receiver adjustment cannot make obvious the claimed transmitter adjustment.” Reply Brief 2 (October 16, 2015). The question presented by the appeal is whether this claim limitation requires adjusting the transmitted frequency at the source. During examination, claims are “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s Specification describes that “the . . . invention provides a method to avoid IR interference among TOF sensors by combining the IR modulation frequency detector with logic for dynamic adjustment of the IR transmission modulation frequency.” Spec. 8,11. 8-11. The Specification further describes that if the duration of an ambient IR modulation frequency is longer than a predefined threshold, then the system “adjust[s] the current IR transmission modulation frequency 209 of the associated TOF sensor.” Id. at 8,11. 16-23. The Specification explains that “[a] minor change of IR modulation frequency 209 (e.g. 20Mh ->20.1 Mhz) can significantly reduce the interference related noise. Thus, the 3 Appeal 2016-000732 Application 13/693,390 interference of ambient IR modulation frequencies can be removed in the depth map acquisition of TOF sensor 205. As a result, TOF sensor raw data 210 can be captured without ambient cross-interference noise.” Id. at 8,1. 27 -9,1.5. The portions of the Specification discussed above describe a method of adjusting the current IR transmission modulation frequency of the associated TOF sensor. Based on this disclosure, we understand the invention to change the IR modulation frequency at the source, so that the signal received at the TOF sensor can be easily distinguished from interference noise. When the “adjusting” step of claim 1 is read in light of the Specification, we understand it to call for adjusting the transmitted infrared illumination modulating frequency of the Time of Flight measurement system such that the transmitted frequency is adjusted at the source. Dishal teaches shifting the frequency of all the signals received at the signal processing circuitry 2 so that the strongest signal is shifted to a special frequency within a band of the attenuating notch of a notch filter 34. Dishal, col. 3,11. 12-19, col. 7,1. 47-col. 8,1. 3, Fig. 1. This system allows the notch filter to attenuate the strongest interference noise prior to the received signals being passed to the receiver 4. Dishal does not teach shifting the frequency of a transmitted modulating frequency at the source. Rather, Dishal teaches shifting the frequency of all signals received at the signal processing circuitry. Thus, Dishal does not disclose adjusting the “transmitted infrared illumination modulating frequency of the Time of Flight measurement system if the preset threshold is exceeded” as called for 4 Appeal 2016-000732 Application 13/693,390 in claim 1. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2 and 3, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wachter and Dishal. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation