Ex Parte Voto et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2012

11199630 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2012)

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.
11/199,630 08/09/2005 Andrew M. Voto DP-312018 2729
22851 7590 01/25/2012
Delphi Technologies, Inc.
M/C 480-410-202
P.O. Box 5052
Troy, MI 48007
EXAMINER
MANDEVILLE, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW M. VOTO, RONALD K. SELBY,
KENNETH D. PERRY, DAVID A. ROSS, ALFRED V. DUMSA, JR.,
RAY LIPPMANN, and YANSONG CHEN
____________

Appeal 2009-012035
Application 11/199,630
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT,
and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-8, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-012035
Application 11/199,630

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a specialized system of light detection
to define the relative motion of the shaft of a joystick (see Spec. ¶ [0005]).
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A joystick having a housing and a handle having a
shaft thereon, wherein the shaft is positioned adjacent at least
two light sensors positioned to create a two-dimensional plane
and which two-dimensional plane is intersected by the shaft,
whereby both angular and rotational positions of the shaft are
discernable by the light sensors when a light source is directed
towards the shaft, wherein the shaft includes an optically
variant feature on or in a portion of the shaft, located where the
two-dimensional plane is intersected by the shaft, and wherein
the optically variant feature is configured to allow sensing of
the rotational position of the shaft by the light sensors when the
light source is directed towards the shaft.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goodson (US 4,607,159) in view of Pettypiece, Jr.
(US 5,223,709).
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goodson and Pettypiece, and further in view of Lee (US
6,392,632 B1).
Appellants’ Contentions
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 8,
Appellants contend that the combination of Goodson and Pettypiece does
not teach or suggest all the claimed features because the areas of varying
density or reflectivity of Pettypiece are on the spherical member 20 rather
Appeal 2009-012035
Application 11/199,630

3
than on or in a portion of the shaft (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 5). Appellants
specifically argue that “Pettypiece does not teach a shaft including an
optically variant feature on or in a portion thereof” and fails to teach that
such feature “is configured to allow sensing of the rotational position of the
shaft” (App. Br. 9).
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 6 and 7 by relying
on the same reasons presented for claim 1 and merely assert that Lee
does not cure the deficiency of the combination of Goodson and
Pettypiece (App. Br. 11).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) because the combination of Goodson and Pettypiece fails to teach
or suggest that “the shaft includes an optically variant feature on or in a
portion of the shaft?”

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see Ans. 4-6
and 11-13) and adopt them as our own. Additionally, we highlight and
address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as
follows.
The Examiner describes the shaft portion of Pettypiece by pointing to
the recited hand controller as “a joystick having a housing (10) and a handle
(32) having a shaft thereon (32, 30, 20)” (Ans. 5). Therefore, we disagree
with Appellants’ assertion (Reply Br. 5) that the claimed shaft is met by the
hand grip 32 and the mounting post 30 of Pettypiece which have no areas of
Appeal 2009-012035
Application 11/199,630

4
varying reflectivity. Reviewing Pettypiece reveals that, when used as a hand
controller, the apparatus attached to the spherical member 20 includes a
mounting post 30 and a hand grip 32 (Pettypiece; Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 14-17). In
other words, the spherical member 20 of Pettypiece, which is used as a hand
controller, is positioned adjacent the light sensors 60, 70, and 80 for
providing the rotational and angular positions of the member 20. As such,
the spherical member 20 functions similar to the shaft recited in Appellants’
claims and carries the optically variant features used for sensing the
rotational position of the shaft or “the yaw axis 36,” whereas the mounting
post and the hand grip 32 are additional parts for manipulating the spherical
member 20 used as the hand controller (see Pettypiece, col. 2, l. 55 – col. 3,
l. 9).
1

Additionally, as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9), the proposed
combination is based on applying the teachings of Pettypiece to Goodson in
order to sense the rotational, as well as the angular, position of the hand
controller using an optically variant feature. Therefore, the teaching value of
Pettypiece is in sensing the rotational position based on the light reflected
off the optically variant feature, and not in the placement of those features.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) because the relied-on portions of Goodson and Pettypiece disclose
or suggest the disputed features.

1
We also note that a shaft, while sometimes cylindrical, may include
different parts having different shapes, such as the shaft 32 of Goodson, as
shown in Figure 3 and described in columns 3 and 4, having a spherical
pivot ball 34 and a semi-spherical lowermost end 46.
Appeal 2009-012035
Application 11/199,630

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 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).

AFFIRMED

ELD