Ex Parte Lundquist

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2014

11228647 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

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.
11/228,647 09/17/2005 Paul Bryan Lundquist LUN-0601 3798
7590 03/11/2014
Paul Lundquist
9034 S. Lanai Lane
Vail, AZ 85641
EXAMINER
FRY, MATTHEW A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL BRYAN LUNDQUIST
____________

Appeal 2011-009375
Application 11/228,647
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009375
Application 11/228,647

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-9, 13-22, and 26-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a human-machine interface for entering
data into electronic devices by using electrodes attached to a person’s hand
and/or fingers (Spec. 2:4-10). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A human-machine interface system including:

two or more body-attached electrodes, where at least one
of the electrodes is insulated, where said body-attached
electrodes are coupled to form an electrical connection network
that is sensed by the application of probe signals to sense an
electrode configuration, including one of close proximity and
contact between a fingertip electrode and one or more body-
attached electrodes, wherein the insulated electrodes include
one of capacitive electrodes and inductive electrodes, wherein
one or more sensed electrical couplings between said fingertip
and body-attached electrodes is arranged to generate data
signals, wherein movement of said fingertip and one or more of
the body-attached electrodes into one of close proximity and
contact is arranged to generate the sensed electrical couplings;

a one or more sensing sequences for a plurality of
electrode configurations; and

at least one output-generating element,

wherein at least one of the one or more sensing
sequences includes a predetermined selection of electrodes of
the electrode configurations to probe and sense, and a
Appeal 2011-009375
Application 11/228,647

3
predetermined selection of the electrode configurations are not
probed and sensed, wherein said data signals correspond to one
of keyboard data entry, keyed data input and musical device
pitch control.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Grimes

Vranish

Prince

McDowall

Van Leeuwen
US 4,414,537

US 4,950,987

US 5,581,484

US 6,128,004

US 2006/0161846 A1
Nov. 8, 1983

Aug. 21, 1990

Dec. 3, 1996

Oct. 3, 2000

July 20, 2006

Chin-Shyurng Fahn & Herman Sun, Development of a Data Glove with
Reducing Sensors Based on Magnetic Induction, 52 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
INDUS. ELECTRONICS 585 (Apr. 2005).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 13, 15-17, 19-22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grimes and Fahn.
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grimes, Fahn, and McDowall.
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grimes, Fahn, and Prince.
Claims 18 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grimes, Fahn, and Van Leeuwen.
Appeal 2011-009375
Application 11/228,647

4

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends “Fahn does not teach, disclose or suggest any
arrangement wherein fingertip electrodes, including capacitive or inductive
types of electrodes, are placed into contact or close proximity to generate a
keyed data output” (Br. 18). Appellant also contends Fahn “doesn’t teach
the use of insulated electrodes” (Br. 21). Rather, Appellant argues, “[s]uch
an arrangement is irrelevant in Fahn, which is concerned only with joint
angles, and not close proximity or contact between a fingertip electrode and
one or more body-attached electrodes” (Br. 23). Appellant further contends
Fahn’s “Time Division method teaches that each coil IS scanned, and that
the only limitation in Fahn is that the coils are not scanned simultaneously.
Fahn provides no teaching or suggestion for simply NOT probing and
sensing some of these coils.” (Br. 19).
Additionally, Appellant contends
Fahn teaches away from a device where close proximity or
contact between sensors is to be sensed, and where control of
fingertip sensors would be advantageous for natural control.
This is because Fahn is not teaching a solution for textual,
keyboard-type input, but for virtual reality representation of
hand positions.
(Br. 21). Specifically, Appellant argues Fahn’s sensor coil and generator
coil “are not physically capable of coming into close proximity or contact”
(Br. 20). Appellant further argues “Fahn explicitly recommends not placing
the sensors on the distal phalanges of the fingers (fingertips are on the distal
phalanges)” (id.). We disagree with Appellant.
Grimes discloses “a glove equipped with sensors for detecting
character specifying hand movements. The forming of the hand and fingers
Appeal 2011-009375
Application 11/228,647

5
into the different character specifying positions activates various
combinations of sensors so that electrical signals representing the specified
characters are generated.” (Grimes, col. 1, ll. 14-20). One type of sensors
on the glove is termed “knuckle-bend sensors” (Grimes, col. 3, ll. 45-46;
Figs. 4, 5). The signals generated by the knuckle-bend sensors, in
combination with signals generated by the other types of sensors, are used to
determine whether certain characters are output by the circuitry connected to
the glove (see Grimes, col. 5, l. 4–col. 6, l. 28; Figs. 6, 7).
Fahn discloses “a data glove system using magnetic induction coils as
finger movement sensors” (Fahn, Abstract). For example, on the thumb,
“the sensor coil is placed on the proximal phalange and the generator coils
are placed on the distal phalange and metacarpal” (Fahn, p. 588, col. 2). The
distance between a sensor coil and generator coil is calculated based on the
electromotive force induced in the sensor coil by the magnetic field of a
generator coil (see Fahn, p. 586, col. 2–p. 588, col. 1). The bending angle of
given joint is then calculated based on this distance (see Fahn, p. 588, col. 2–
p. 589, col. 2; Fig. 5(a)).
Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., “when a patent claims a structure
already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one
element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than
yield a predictable result.” 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We thus agree with
the Examiner’s conclusion (see Ans. 6, 16) that it would have been obvious
to substitute Fahn’s inductive sensing mechanism for the knuckle-bend
sensors in Grimes’s glove in order to measure knuckle bend, particularly
absent any showing by Appellant that the combination would yield more
than predictable results. We also agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 15-18)
Appeal 2011-009375
Application 11/228,647

6
that this combination discloses all the elements of claim 1 disputed by
Appellant for the following reasons.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “inductive types of electrodes, are
placed into contact or close proximity,” the Examiner finds (Ans. 5, 15), and
we agree, that Fahn’s sensor coil and generator coils are inductive
electrodes. Further, in Fahn the bend of a given joint is determined by
sensing when the sensor coil and a generator coil move closer to one another
(Fahn, p. 588, col. 2–p. 589, col. 2; Fig. 5(a)). Claim 1 does not recite any
specific distance defined by the claimed “close proximity,” and we find that
this language reasonably encompasses Fahn’s sensor coil moving close
enough to a generator coil so as to detect the magnetic field of the generator
coil.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “at least one of the electrodes is
insulated,” we note the Examiner relies on Vranish to evidence the fact that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the importance of
providing insulation on an inductive electrode (Ans. 6, 15). Appellant does
not explain any shortcoming of the Examiner’s reliance on Vranish to
support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to insulate at least
one of Fahn’s coils. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in concluding this feature would have been obvious.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “a predetermined selection of the
electrode configurations are not probed and sensed,” we agree with the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 16) that Fahn’s time division method for scanning
the generator and sensor coils discloses this feature. Specifically, Fahn
discloses: “To prevent interference, each generator coil is given an
activation time slice and scanned on a round-robin basis. Within each time
Appeal 2011-009375
Application 11/228,647

7
slice, the associated sensor coil output is detected and the resulting analog
stream is fed to an A/D converter.” (Fahn, p. 591, col. 2). That is, generator
coils are not scanned and sensor coils are not sensed during time slices
outside of the assigned time slice for the respective generator coils and
sensor coils, which meets the limitation of “a predetermined selection of the
electrode configurations are not probed and sensed” during a given sensing
sequence.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument (see Br. 20-21)
that Fahn teaches away from sensing close proximity or contact between a
fingertip electrode and body-attached electrode because Fahn relates to a
virtual reality glove, instead of a glove for keyboard-type input. As
mentioned above, Fahn’s glove determines knuckle bend by measuring close
proximity of generator and sensor coils. It is this sensing mechanism that
the Examiner proposes combining with Grimes’s glove (Ans. 6), which does
disclose using a sensory glove for keyboard-type input (Grimes, col. 1, ll. 6-
20). The fact that Fahn’s glove is intended to be used as a virtual reality
glove has no bearing on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have
substituted Fahn’s sensing mechanism for the knuckle-bend sensors in
Grimes’s glove. As discussed above, such combination would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Appellant’s argument
(see Br. 20) that Fahn teaches away from placing electrodes on the fingertips
is not persuasive because, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 17), Fahn explicitly
discloses “the generator coils are placed on the distal phalange and
metacarpal” (Fahn, p. 588, col. 2 (emphasis added)).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-9, 13-22, and 26-28 not specifically argued separately.
Appeal 2011-009375
Application 11/228,647

8
We note that although Appellant provides arguments for each of
independent claims 1, 19, and 22, the arguments presented for claims 19 and
22 appear to be verbatim copies of the arguments provided for claim 1, and
we thus treat all claims as argued together.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9, 13-22, and 26-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9, 13-22, and 26-28 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

bab