2019004862 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2020)

Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 8, 2020

2019004862 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2020)

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. 14/176,464 02/10/2014 Hua SHENG 2017P00449 US02 9397 14868 7590 07/08/2020 Patent Docketing 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300 Attention: Docketing Wilmington, DE 19809 EXAMINER MARINI, MATTHEW G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2020 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): docketing@interdigital.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUA SHENG, BRYAN C. COOK, and MATTHEW G. LIBERTY Appeal 2019-004862 Application 14/176,464 Technology Center 2800 Before DEBRA L. DENNETT, LILAN REN, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1 and 3–20.1 See Final Act. 7, 11, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “lnterDigital Patent Holding, Inc.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004862 Application 14/176,464 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER “The present invention describes bias tracking techniques, systems, software and devices, which can be used in 3D pointing devices, as well as in other types of devices.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for filtering an output of a sensor to compensate for a bias error comprising: sensing rotation of a device about at least one axis to generate at least one output associated therewith, the output comprising at least one of an angular velocity, an angular rate, and an angular position; and utilizing a zero-rate output (ZRO) tracking filter configured to receive said at least one output to compensate said at least one output for zero-rate offset error, wherein said ZRO filter is implemented as a combination of a Kalman filter having at least one constraint enforced on at least one parameter associated therewith and a moving average filter. Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App). Appeal 2019-004862 Application 14/176,464 3 REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Wang US 7,424,392 B1 Sept. 9, 2008 Hsiung US 2009/0234587 A1 Sept. 17, 2009 Joseph US 2010/0174506 A1 July 8, 2010 Best The identifying extended Kalman filter: parametric system identification of a vehicle handling model, Special Issue Paper, Proc. IMechE, Vol. 221, Part K: J., Multi-body Dynamics 2007 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 3–7, 9–14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Joseph and Best. Final Act. 7.3 Claims 16–18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Joseph, Best, and Wang. Final Act. 11. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Joseph, Best, and Hsiung. Final Act. 14. 2 A rejection under section 101 has been withdrawn (Ans. 3) and is not before us. 3 The Examiner rejects “[c]laims 1–7, 9–14, and 19” which is believed to be a typographical error. See Final Act. 7, 8–11 (analyzing only claims 1, 3–7, 9–14, and 19). Appeal 2019-004862 Application 14/176,464 4 OPINION Claim 1 In rejecting claim 1 over Joseph and Best, the Examiner finds that Joseph teaches “filter 403” which “calibrates and corrects signals from the sensors such the signals are assumed to have zero error” corresponding to the recited ZRO tracking filter “utilize[ed] . . . to compensate said at least one output for zero-rate offset error.” Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that “once the filter 403 compensates for the error, a Kalman filter is applied” which reads on the recited “implemented.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that “said ZRO filter (403) is implemented as combination of a Kalman filter.” Final Act. 7 (citing Joseph ¶ 60). Recognizing that Joseph is “silent regarding the Kalman filter having at least one constraint enforced on at least one parameter associated therewith and a moving average filter,” the Examiner cites Best for the teaching. Id. (citing Best 88–89 and formulas 12–24). Appellant, on the other hand, argues that Joseph does not teach using a Kalman filter as a ZRO tracking filter. Appeal Br. 35. More specifically, Appellant argues that Joseph paragraph 60, cited by the Examiner, only shows that the Kalman filter is used “to compute the altitude of the device after the sensors[] are already calibrated.” Id. (emphasis removed). Appellant also argues that Best does not teach a ZRO tracking filter. Id. at 34. Joseph paragraph 60 provides, in part: In some embodiments, the sensors 401 are calibrated and corrected 403. For example, the sensors 401 may be calibrated and corrected so that a Kalman filter that is used to compute the attitude of a multi-dimensional pointing device (e.g., the multi- Appeal 2019-004862 Application 14/176,464 5 dimensional pointing device 102 in FIG. 1, etc.) is initialized with a zero assumed error. The Kalman filter states are then determined 404. We are persuaded that the record supports Appellant’s argument with regard to Joseph’s teaching. The Examiner does not disagree that Joseph teaches that the Kalman filter is used subsequent to the sensors 401 being calibrated. Compare Ans. 3, with Appeal Br. 34; see also Joseph ¶ 60 (describing Fig. 4 which illustrates “Calibrate/Correct 403” followed by “Compute Kalman Filter States 404.”). The Examiner only states that the fact that “once the filter 403 compensates for the error, a Kalman filter is applied” meets the recited “implemented.” Ans. 3. The claim language, however, requires more than “implemented” — the claim requires that that “ZRO filter is implemented as a combination of a Kalman filter . . . and a moving average filter.” The Examiner’s finding that “said ZRO filter (403) is implemented as combination of a Kalman filter” (Final Act. 7) does not sufficiently support a teaching of the claim language which requires “a combination” of two filters — Kalman and moving average. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain that Best’s teaching about “an extended Kalman filter” with “tuning parameters  and , using a moving average” combined with Joseph would result in a combination of two filters being implemented as a ZRO filter. Ans. 4. We accordingly do not sustain the rejection based on the current record. Appeal 2019-004862 Application 14/176,464 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. More specifically, DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 9– 14, 19 103(a) Joseph, Best 1, 3–7, 9– 14, 19 16–18, 20 103(a) Joseph, Best, Wang 16–18, 20 8, 15 103(a) Joseph, Best, Hsiung 8, 15 Overall Outcome: 1, 3–20 REVERSED