InvenSense, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2021

2020002033 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2021)

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.
15/167,036 05/27/2016 Da Wang IVS-655/225.184 4908
120296 7590 03/29/2021
Bay Area Technology Law Group/
InvenSense
2171 E. Francisco Blvd
Suite L
San Rafael, CA 94901
EXAMINER
GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2021 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 DA WANG, HUSSEIN SAHLI,
JACQUES GEORGY, TAO LI, and SHENG MAO

Appeal 2020-002033
Application 15/167,036
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 and 20–48. Claim 19 was
cancelled. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
InvenSense, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2020-002033
Application 15/167,036

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Of the claims on appeal, claims 1, 34, 37, and 40 are independent.
Claim 1 is directed to a “method for ordering a plurality of anchor points
based at least in part on a navigation solution from a portable device.”
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Claims 34, 37, and 40 are directed to a
“system,” “server,” and “portable device,” respectively, and recite
limitations similar to those of claim 1. Id. at 28–31. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below.
1. A method for ordering a plurality of anchor points based
at least in part on a navigation solution from a portable device,
wherein the mobility of the portable device is constrained or
unconstrained within a platform and wherein the portable device
may be tilted to any orientation, the method comprising:
a) obtaining motion sensor data for the portable device
representing motion of the portable device at a plurality of
epochs over a first period of time, wherein the motion sensor data
comprises data from at least one inertial sensor;
b) deriving a trajectory for the portable device for the first
period of time based at least in part on the obtained motion sensor
data;
c) obtaining a map of a venue encompassing the trajectory;
d) obtaining at a time subsequent to the first period of time
a plurality of temporally unordered anchor points associated
with the trajectory, wherein the unordered anchor points are
derived from point of sale information;
e) associating known positions of the plurality of anchor
points with the map;
f) characterizing turns of the trajectory;
g) generating a plurality of candidate paths by comparing
the characterized turns to the map;
h) selecting a solution path from the plurality of candidate
paths that corresponds to the plurality of anchor points; and
Appeal 2020-002033
Application 15/167,036

3
i) ordering the plurality of anchor points temporally based
at least in part on the solution path, so that the plurality of anchor
points are temporally ordered based at least in part on the
obtained motion sensor data.

Id. at 24 (emphases added).
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8, 11–18, 20–22, and 34–48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Choudhury,2 Argue,3 and Godsey.4
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Choudhury, Argue, Godsey, and Shen.5
Claims 23–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Choudhury, Argue and Godsey, and Liu.6
Claims 30 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Choudhury, Argue, Godsey, and Bonner.7
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Choudhury, Argue, Godsey, Bonner, and Goldman.8

2 U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2015/0281910 A1, pub. Oct. 1, 2015
(“Choudhury”).
3 U.S. Patent No. 9,147,208 B1, iss. Sept. 29, 2015 (“Argue”).
4 U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2002/0161651 A1, pub. Oct. 31, 2002
(“Godsey”).
5 U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2014/0256356 A1, pub. Sept. 11, 2014 (“Shen”).
6 U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2008/0165053 A1, pub. July 10, 2008 (“Liu”).
7 U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2009/0224977 A1, pub. Sept. 10, 2009
(“Bonner”).
8 U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2014/0343846 A1, pub. Nov. 20, 2014
(“Goldman”).
Appeal 2020-002033
Application 15/167,036

4
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Choudhury, Argue, Godsey, and Tapley.9
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness (Claims 1–8, 11–18, 20–22, and 34–48)
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 34, 37, and 40 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Choudhury, Argue, and
Godsey. Final Act. 3–5 (claim 1), 8–10 (claim 34), 10–12 (claim 37), 12–14
(claim 40). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that the asserted
combination discloses the following limitations in each of the independent
claims, namely, that the anchor points be “obtain[ed] at a time subsequent to
the first period of time,” be “temporally unordered” at the time they are
obtained, and be “derived from point of sale information.” See Appeal Br.
7–11; Reply Br. 2–6. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Choudhury
and Argue lack these disputed limitations, the Examiner finds nonetheless
that they are taught by Godsey. See Final Act. 5 (citing Godsey ¶¶ 24–33,
42–46, Fig. 2, in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, 11, 13–14 ).
We disagree that Godsey, either alone or in combination with
Choudhury and Argue, teaches the manner of obtaining anchor points called
for each of the independent claims. In rejecting the independent claims, the
Examiner cites a broad range of undifferentiated paragraphs in Godsey as
teaching the disputed limitations. See, e.g., Final Act. 5 (citing Godsey
¶¶ 24–33, 42–46). Later, in an interview with Appellant, the Examiner
appears to focus on Godsey’s paragraph 45 for the requisite teachings. See

9 U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2013/0282520 A1, pub. Oct. 24, 2013
(“Tapley”).
Appeal 2020-002033
Application 15/167,036

5
Appeal Br. 9. But, in the Answer, the Examiner shifts tracks, now citing
paragraph 25 of Godsey as teaching the disputed limitations. See Ans. 3.
Be it paragraph 25 or 45 of Godsey, we are not persuaded that either
of those paragraphs can be reconciled with claim limitations requiring that
the anchor points are “obtain[ed] at a time subsequent to the first period of
time,” are “temporally unordered,” and are “derived from point of sale
information.” More specifically, as called for by the independent claims,
motion sensor data for deriving a trajectory is collected during “a first
period of time,” whereas anchor point data for deriving a solution path is
obtained “at a time subsequent to the first period of time.” That is not the
case in Godfrey. For instance, paragraph 45 of Godsey discloses
“technology which tracks which products consumers actually place in carts
at particular times” and uses “RF identification tags on the products and
sensors/receivers on the carts” to “sense when a consumer places particular
objects in the cart.” Godsey ¶ 45. As described, however, Godfrey’s
sensing of product placement, which corresponds to anchor points—occurs
while the shopping cart is moving throughout the store and obtaining motion
sensor data for deriving the trajectory of the shopping cart, in other words,
during a first period of time. Thus, Godsey’s paragraph 45 neither teaches
nor suggests the claim limitation requiring that the anchor points be
“obtain[ed] at a time subsequent to the first period of time,” which occurs
after “deriving a trajectory . . . based at least in part on the obtained motion
sensor data.”
Equally clear is the fact that Godsey’s sensing of the “particular times
. . . when a consumer places particular objects in the cart” does not meet the
limitation of the independent claims requiring that the anchor points are
Appeal 2020-002033
Application 15/167,036

6
“temporally unordered” at the time they are obtained. So, in addition to the
fact that Godsey’s anchor points are obtained in the course of obtaining
motion sensor data (i.e., during the claimed “first period of time”), Godsey’s
anchor points, or product placements, are also temporally ordered given
Godsey’s disclosure of identifying when a consumer places or removes a
product from the cart. See Godsey ¶ 45. In other words, that Godsey
identifies the sequence in which products are placed in the cart does not
meet the claim limitation that the anchor points be “temporally unordered” at
the time they are “derived from point of sale information.”
The Examiner’s alternative reliance on paragraph 25 of Godsey is
equally unavailing. See Ans. 3. Citing Godsey’s paragraph 25, the
Examiner finds that Godsey’s data points “are only ordered after it is
determined the cart has traveled from a cart return area to a point of sale
location.” Id. (emphasis added). A simple reading of paragraph 25,
however, reveals that “the set of data points” discussed in that paragraph are
the data points generated by motion sensors 108, which, as described in
preceding paragraph 23, are used to derive the trajectory, i.e., track, of the
shopping cart from pick-up to check-out—“As carts 102 move through the
store, the signature transmission of each is picked up and recorded by
sensors 108 at various locations (202)” and “the location data generated by
sensors 108 are received and processed to identify valid and complete
‘tracks’ followed by any of the carts.” Godsey ¶ 23. In other words, the
“data points” of Godsey’s paragraph 25 correspond to motion sensor data for
initially deriving the trajectory of the shopping cart, not anchor point data
derived subsequently from point of sale, i.e., check-out, information, as
called for by the independent claims. Accordingly, the Examiner’s reliance
Appeal 2020-002033
Application 15/167,036

7
on Godsey’s paragraph 25 is no more persuasive than his reliance on
Godsey’s paragraph 45.
In sum, because the Examiner errs in finding that the asserted
combination of Choudhury, Argue, and Godsey discloses the claim
limitations directed to the time at which the anchor points are obtained, as
well as their temporal order, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of the independent claims, as well the dependent claims rejected
on the basis of the same combination of references.
B. Obviousness (Claims 9, 10, 23–33)
In rejecting dependent claims 9, 10, and 23–33, the Examiner again
relies on the combination of Choudhry, Argue, and Godsey, while adding
various teachings from Shen, Liu, Bonner, Goldman, and/or Tapley. Final
Act. 16–22. But, in doing so, the Examiner fails to cure the deficiencies of
Godsey with respect to the disputed limitations of the independent claims
from which these claims depend. See id. Thus, for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to the independent claims, we reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 9, 10, and 23–33.
Appeal 2020-002033
Application 15/167,036

8
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 11–18,
20–22, 34–48
103 Choudhury, Argue,
Godsey
1–8, 11–18,
20–22, 34–48
9, 10 103 Choudhury, Argue,
Godsey, Shen
9, 10
23–29 103 Choudhury, Argue,
Godsey, Liu
23–29
30, 32 103 Choudhury, Argue,
Godsey, Bonner
30, 32
31 103 Choudhury, Argue,
Godsey, Bonner,
Goldman
31
33 103 Choudhury, Argue,
Godsey, Tapley
33
Overall
Outcome
1–18, 20–48
REVERSED