Ex Parte KO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2017

13693390 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 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.
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