Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13839099 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
13/839,099 03/15/2013 Chuang-Chia Lin 64658US01-U100-012492 9170
88326 7590
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
09/28/2017 EXAMINER
MANSEN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
U S PatDocket @ kinney. com
amkoenck @ kinney. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUANG-CHIA LIN
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—15. Claim 3 has been cancelled and
claims 16—20 have been withdrawn. App. Br. 12—16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a hoist and winch cable angle
sensor. Spec. 14. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below with the disputed
limitations in italics, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. An assembly comprising:
a winch;
a cable; and
a fleet angle sensor comprising:
a frame disposed around an opening;
a first photodetector mounted on the frame, wherein the
first photodetector comprises four light-receiving zones
arranged in quadrants; and
a first light source mounted on the frame opposite the
first photodetector and opposite the four light-receiving zones
of the first photodetector; and
wherein the first light source directs a first light beam across the
opening to the four light-receiving zones of the first photodetector, the
cable extends through the opening and into the first light beam, and
the multiple light-receiving zones produce signals that vary based
upon a fleet angle of the cable extending through the opening.
10. The assembly of claim 9, wherein a shield device is disposed
under the frame to protect the sensor from the environment or debris
carried by the cable, wherein the shield device comprises:
a shield frame disposed under the frame of the fleet angle
sensor and around the cable; and
2
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
a flexible diaphragm extending from an inside surface of the
shield frame toward the cable, wherein the flexible diaphragm
comprises a hole and the cable extends through the hole.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,2, and 4—15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pellen (US 2010/0201970 Al; published
Aug. 12, 2010).
Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Pellen and Swanson et al.
(2009/0313844 Al; published Dec. 24, 2009) (“Swanson”).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Pellen, or the combination of
Pellen and Swanson, teaches or suggests “the first photodetector comprises
four light-receiving zones arranged in quadrants,” as recited in independent
claim 1?
Appellant argues “adding a photodetector with four light-receiving
zones to the fleet angle sensor device (200) [in] Pellen is more than a
‘reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts’ taught by Pellen” and
instead “is an addition of a new part to Pellen not taught by Pellen itself’
because “Pellen does not teach a photodetector with four light-receiving
zones arranged as quadrants.” App. Br. 5. Appellants further argue “[e]ven
if adding a photodetector with four light-receiving zones to Pellen qualified
as a ‘reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts’ . . . Pellen teaches
away from such an improvement. . . [because Pellen] teach[es] a different
3
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
solution for providing more accurate measurement in a fleet angle sensor . . .
[namely] additional pairs of light sources (220) and receivers (230 are added
to the fleet angle sensor device (200).” App. Br. 6.
“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of [prior art]
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Pellen describes a fleet angle
sensor device that uses “one or more collimated light sources 220 (e.g., laser
light sources) aligned with a corresponding one or more optical receivers
230 (e.g., photo-transistors detectors).” Pellen 120. Pellen discloses
“[v]arious light-beam patterns within the aperture may provide different
advantages when determining deviations of the cable from the aperture
center axis.” Pellen 115. Pellen further describes “a number of possible
geometric combinations of light beam sources 220 and receivers 230 [that]
may be used to cover different parts of the aperture 205 so as to provide an
indication of where the cable 210 intersects the plane of the aperture 205
relative to the center axis 240, and, thereby, to detect excessive fleet-angle
240.” Pellen 123; see, e.g. Figs. 3—6. The Examiner interprets each light
receiver in Pellen as the claimed “light receiving zones,” and finds “Pellen
discloses several embodiments with different numbers of said ‘zones’, which
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange ‘in
quadrants’ as broadly claimed, as Pellen discloses a variety of
arrangements.” Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 2, 4—5.
Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings. In
particular, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner’s interpretation of the
“light receiving zones” is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with
the Specification. Nor has Appellant shown such an arrangement would
4
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
have been uniquely challenging or difficult for an ordinary' artisan or
represented an unobvious step over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc.
v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR ini 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Moreover, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s teaching away argument (App. Br. 5—6). See
Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013),
cert, denied, 134 S. Ct. 2740 (U.S. 2014) (“A reference does not teach away,
... if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention
but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into
the invention claimed.”)
Alternatively, the Examiner relies on Swanson to teach or suggest the
“first photodetector comprises four light-receiving zones arrange in
quadrants” and finds “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made, to provide a CCD array as
taught by Swanson in the device of Pellen, as Pellen teaches additional
beam/detector combinations increase accuracy.” Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues “Swanson makes no suggestion or teaching that the
CCD arrays of light sensors (3 88A) and (388B) comprise ‘four light­
receiving zones arranged in quadrants.’” App. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded. Swanson describes “[ljight sensor 388A may
include a CCD array 389A or other light detector as is well known.”
Swanson 194. The Examiner finds:
Swanson utilizes a CCD array which is a device which,
similarly to Pellen, relies upon a multiplicity of sensors
operating collectively as a single unit. As the sensors of
Swanson are laid out as an ‘array’ they are either inherently or
obviously laid out in at least 2x2 formation, though likely
5
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
having many more rows and columns than merely 2x2. As
such, they are laid out ‘in quadrants’ as broadly claimed.
Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 4. As with Pellen, Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings. Specifically,
Appellant has not persuasively explained why Swanson’s CCD array
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation, as set forth by the
Examiner.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same
reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent
claims 2 and 4—9 and 11—15, which were not separately argued. App.
Br. 8.
Claim 10
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Pellen teaches or suggests “a
flexible diaphragm extending from an inside surface of the shield frame
toward the cable,” as recited in dependent claim 10?
Appellant argues “[t]he Examiner failed to address the flexible
diaphragm limitation of dependent claim 10 and the fact that Pellen does not
disclose a flexible diaphragm as claimed.” App. Br. 8. Appellant further
argues “the Examiner erred in asserting that bell-mouth opening (206) can
be characterized as a diaphragm as described by dependent claim 10.” App.
Br. 8. Appellant argues, while “[dependent claim 10 requires that the
diaphragm extend ‘from an inside surface of the shield frame toward the
cable,”’ the “bell-mouth opening (206) [in Pellen] tapers away from cable
(210).” App. Br. 8. Appellant further argues “all of the figures in Pellen
suggest that the frame of bell-mouth opening (206) is rigid and not flexible
6
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
because the frame of bell-mouth opening (206) also forms the housing for
sensor (217).” App. Br. 8.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s
Specification describes “[wjhile shield device 51 has been described as
including bristles 53 to block light, water, dirt, and other contaminants from
entering opening 26, shield device may employ other means to block
contaminants from entering opening 26, such as a flexible diaphragm with a
hole to accommodate cable 18.” Spec. 124, referring to Fig. 2.
Pellen describes
Each light source 220 may produce a beam of light 225 that
may be reflected by one or more reflectors (such as reflectors
231 and 221 to be directed across an aperture 205 as defined by
a housing (i.e., the fleet angle sensor device as described further
below) and eventually to be received by the receiver 230. . .
The aperture 205 may be circular and lie in a plane that is
perpendicular to a center axis 235 of the bell-mouth opening
206 through which a cable 210 may extend.
Pellen || 20, 21. Figure 2 of Pellen is reproduced below:
7
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
203.
V*
Figure 2 depicts a cut-away isometric view of an embodiment of a
fleet angle sensor, including aperture 205, cable 210, and bell-opening 206.
The Examiner finds “the bell-mouth opening of Pellen is a ‘flexible
diaphragm’ as broadly claimed.” Ans. 3. The Examiner interprets the term
“diaphragm” as meaning “a dividing membrane or thin partition especially
in a tube,” and finds “[t]he bell of Pellen is a dividing membrane or thin
partition.” Ans. 3. Consistent with the Examiner’s own interpretation of a
“flexible diaphragm,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
sufficiently shown that the bell-mouth opening or bell of Pellen teaches or
suggests a “flexible diaphragm,” as recited in claim 10.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal 2017-004596
Application 13/839,099
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—9, and
11—15 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 is reversed.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9