Ex Parte Brumback et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2017

14045563 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
14/045,563 10/03/2013 Christine Boomer Brumback FTBTP003A 3782
119042 7590 12/20/2017
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP; FITBIT
ATTN: FITBIT, INC
P.O. BOX 70250
Oakland, CA 94612-0250
EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2017 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):
uspto@wavsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTINE BOOMER BRUMBACK,
DAVID WAYNE KNIGHT, JAMES PARK,
ANDREW COLE AXLEY, and SHELTEN GEE JAO YUEN
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a
non-final rejection of claims 1—15 and 17—26, i.e., all pending claims.
Because the claims have been twice rejected, we have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420,
1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Fitbit, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to a “biometric
monitoring device with a display.” Abstract; see Spec. ]Hf 3, 5—66.2 The
Specification explains that “a biometric monitoring device integrated into a
wristband may be configured to turn a display of the biometric monitoring
device on and display the time in response to biometric sensors . . . detecting
motion of the wearer’s forearm consistent with moving the forearm into a
watch-viewing position.” Abstract; see Spec. Tflf 186—189, 200.
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 26 exemplify the claims at issue and read as
follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a wristband configured to be worn on a person’s forearm;
one or more biometric sensors;
a display;
at least one processor; and
a memory, wherein:
the memory, the at least one processor, the one or
more biometric sensors, and the display are
communicatively connected with one another, and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed October 3, 2013; “Non-Final Act.” for the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed September 20, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief,
filed December 14, 2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed
February 16, 2017; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed April 14,
2017.
2
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
the memory stores computer-executable
instructions for controlling the at least one processor to:
a) receive biometric data from the one or
more biometric sensors, wherein the biometric data
includes data that describes three-dimensional
movement of the apparatus over time,
b) determine that the biometric data
indicates that the apparatus has experienced three-
dimensional movement, including rotational
motion of the apparatus about an axis substantially
aligned with the person’s forearm when the
apparatus is worn on the person’s forearm,
consistent with movements of the person’s forearm
taken to bring a watch worn on the person’s
forearm from a position that is not associated with
reading the time on the watch by the person into a
position allowing the time on the watch to be read
by the person, and
c) cause, responsive to (b) and without the
received biometric data describing three-
dimensional movements other than movements
normally taken to bring a watch worn on the
person’s forearm into a position allowing the time
on the watch to be read, the display to display a
predetermined data display page indicating a
measurement obtained or derived from the
biometric data or an internal clock of the at least
one processor.
26. A method comprising:
detecting, using one or more biometric sensors connected
with a wristband, three-dimensional movement indicative of
rotation of the wristband about an axis aligned with a person’s
forearm when the wristband is worn on the person’s forearm;
determining that the rotation of the wristband about the
axis meets a first threshold; and
3
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
causing, responsive to the determining and without the
detected three-dimensional movement including three-
dimensional movements other than movements normally taken
to bring a watch worn on the person’s forearm from a position
that is not associated with reading the time on the watch by the
person into a position allowing the time on the watch to be read,
a display connected with the wristband to be transitioned
between a state in which the display does not show a time-of-
day to a state in which the display shows a time-of-day.
App. Br. 32—33, 38—39 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Sato et al. US 5,612,931 Mar. 18, 1997
(“Sato”)
Fitzgerald et al. US 2009/0195497 Al Aug. 6, 2009
(“Fitzgerald”)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 5—14, 17, 18, and 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fitzgerald. Non-Final Act. 6—16.
Claims 4, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fitzgerald and Sato. Non-Final Act. 16—19.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—15 and 17—26 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Non-Final Office Action
4
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
(Non-Final Act. 2—19) and Answer (Ans. 11—31). We add the following to
address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1—3, 5—14, 17, 18, and 20—26
Independent Claims 1 and 11
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 11
because Fitzgerald does not disclose or suggest the following limitation in
claim 1 and a similar limitation in claim 11:
b) determine that the biometric data indicates that the apparatus
has experienced three-dimensional movement, including
rotational motion of the apparatus about an axis substantially
aligned with the person’s forearm when the apparatus is worn
on the person’s forearm, consistent with movements of the
person’s forearm taken to bring a watch worn on the person’s
forearm from a position that is not associated with reading the
time on the watch by the person into a position allowing the
time on the watch to be read by the person.
See App. Br. 13—16; Reply Br. 6—7. In particular, Appellants contend that
“Fitzgerald uses the absolute orientation of the device to determine if the
device is in a viewable orientation rather than utilizing movement. ” App.
Br. 15 ; see Reply Br. 6—7. In addition, Appellants contend that Fitzgerald
determines whether the device enters a viewable orientation based on
“instantaneous orientation,” not motion. App. Br. 15. According to
Appellants, “Fitzgerald’s device does not take into account what the nature
of th[e] movement was in making a determination that the device” transitions
from outside to inside a “viewable range” according to Fitzgerald. Reply
Br. 6.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as the Examiner determines, Fitzgerald teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations in claims 1 and 11. See Non-Final Act. 2-4, 7—8; Ans. 13,
5
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
26—27. In particular, Fitzgerald discloses gesture-based power management
for a wearable electronic device, such as a watch, that enables the device’s
display when the device enters a “viewable range” corresponding to a watch­
viewing position. Fitzgerald H 3, 14—16, 45—50, 64, Abstract, Figs. 4—5; see
Ans. 11—14, 26—27. Fitzgerald instructs that making the “device appear[]
like a regular mechanical watch” will make the device “easy and natural to
use.” Fitzgerald 114.
Fitzgerald describes the “viewable range” as “a predefined rotational
angle range in each of the x, y, and z axis, to a user based upon a position of
the device with respect to” a reference orientation. Fitzgerald H 3, 48,
Abstract, Fig. 4; see Ans. 26—27. To determine when the device enters the
viewable range, Fitzgerald uses an inertial sensor, such as a 3-axis
accelerometer, to “track motion in three dimensions” by detecting
“rotational acceleration and absolute deflection” related to device “angles
and positions.” Fitzgerald H 43, 47; see Ans. 12—13, 26—27. For example,
Fitzgerald employs “three-dimensional sensing” to determine device “angles
and positions” during device movement. Fitzgerald 147. Fitzgerald
explains that the preferred inertial sensor permits “more precise tracking” of
device movement. Id. 143.
Fitzgerald also explains that the preferred inertial sensor “tracks
motion” and “provides information in the (x,y,z) coordinates” to a
microprocessor that “track[s] the current (x,y,z) position and actively
determine[s] whether the device is within the viewable range.” Fitzgerald
1148-49; see Ans. 13. The microprocessor employs a “standard
mathematical translation” to calculate the viewable range’s (x,y,z)
coordinates based on the viewable range’s predefined rotational angles.
6
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
Fitzgerald 149; see Ans. 13. Thus, the microprocessor plots the device’s
path as it travels through space to determine when it transitions from outside
to inside the viewable range. Consequently, Fitzgerald teaches or suggests
using movement and motion, including rotational motion, to determine when
a device moves into a watch-viewing position.
Fitzgerald reinforces this disclosure regarding a motion-based
determination by describing a gradual “ramp up and/or ramp down [of] the
display brightness at the edges of the viewable angle ranges.” Fitzgerald
1 64; see Ans. 14. For example, Fitzgerald explains that “the display
brightness may be gradually increased when entering the predetermined
rotational angle ranges,” e.g., by starting to turn on at -30° and reaching full
brightness at -20°. Fitzgerald 164; see Ans. 14. Further, Fitzgerald teaches
“[ejxtending this to three dimensions” so the device’s display “would appear
to gradually turn on and off as the device move[s] through various viewable
ranges.” Fitzgerald 164. Because different users move the device at
different rates and reach different angles at different times, the device must
track three-dimensional movement, including rotational motion, to
implement the gradual ramp-up/ramp-down feature.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 11 for
obviousness based on Fitzgerald. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection
of claims 1 and 11.
Independent Claim 26
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26
because Fitzgerald does not disclose or suggest “determining that the
rotation of the wristband about the axis meets a first threshold,” as recited in
7
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
claim 26. See App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 8. More specifically, Appellants
assert that “Fitzgerald’s device does not evaluate whether or not the rotation
that it undergoes meets certain requirements, e.g., a first threshold.” App.
Br. 17 ; see Reply Br. 8. Appellants also assert that (1) “Fitzgerald uses the
term ‘gesture’ to refer to absolute angular orientations or position” and
(2) “whatever ‘threshold’ exists to control display brightness in Fitzgerald is
simply an absolute angular orientation or position threshold—it is not a
threshold based on rotational movement.” App. Br. 18, 29.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as the Examiner determines, Fitzgerald teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation in claim 26. See Non-Final Act. 4, 6—9, 16; Ans. 11—14, 21, 27.
In particular, Fitzgerald discloses (1) a “gesture store” containing “gesture
rules,” i.e., “definitions of different gestures in the form of combinations of
sensor inputs,” and (2) executing “predetermined functions associated with
the gestures . . . upon identification of the gestures.” Fitzgerald 137; see
Ans. 12, 30. When device movement is sensed, the “gesture rules” are
accessed, and “[w]hen the [sensed] movement satisfies the rules in a gesture
definition, the predetermined function may be executed.” Fitzgerald 1 37;
see Ans. 12, 30. Fitzgerald’s “gesture rules” teach or suggest the claimed
“threshold.”
In addition, we disagree with Appellants’ assertion that “Fitzgerald
uses the term ‘gesture’ to refer to absolute angular orientations or position.”
See App. Br. 18. As used in Fitzgerald, the term “gesture” has its
conventional meaning, e.g., “a movement usually of the body or limbs that
8
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
expresses or emphasizes an idea, sentiment, or attitude”3 or “a movement or
position of the hand, arm, body, head, or face that is expressive of an idea,
opinion, emotion, etc.”4 See, e.g., Fitzgerald H 3, 12, 37, 46, 48-49, 63,
67—69, Abstract. For example, Fitzgerald explains that the rotational angles
defining the preferred viewable range “allow for a wide range of natural arm
and body positions . . . .” Id. ^fl[ 48-49; see Ans. 13.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 for obviousness
based on Fitzgerald. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 26.
Dependent Claims 6-10
Claims 6—10 depend from claim 1 and include limitations of varying
scope that encompass determining that “the person has moved their forearm
from a position generally parallel to the long axis of their body to a position
that crosses over their torso in a left-to-right (or right-to-left) direction,” i.e.,
movement “consistent with the motions that a person’s forearm may
experience when the person checks their watch.” App. Br. 33—35 (Claims
App.); Spec. 1186. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 6—10 because (1) determining whether Fitzgerald’s device has
entered the viewable range is “a Boolean [binary] determination” and
(2) “[t]here is no accounting for the motion that might actually cause a
change in such a Boolean [binary] determination” in Fitzgerald. See, e.g.,
App. Br. 18—19. Appellants also argue that “[t]he on-off behavior of
3 Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
gesture.
4 Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gesture7s4.
9
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
Fitzgerald’s display is still governed by the instantaneous orientation of the
display of Fitzgerald’s device.” Reply Br. 10.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that “Fitzgerald describes actively tracking the motion of
the device which is attached to the user’s wrist for the purpose of
determining when the device has entered” a viewable range corresponding to
a watch-viewing position. See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 10; Ans. 15. As
discussed above for claims 1 and 11, Fitzgerald discloses tracking three-
dimensional movement and motion, including “angles and positions,” to
“actively determine whether the device is within the viewable range” and
assess when the device’s display “is visible to the user and should be turned
on.” Fitzgerald H 43, 45, 47-49, Fig. 4; see, e.g., Ans. 12—15, 26—27.
A microprocessor “actively” makes that determination based on information
from an inertial sensor as the device transitions from outside to inside the
viewable range. Fitzgerald H 45, 48-49; see, e.g., Ans. 12—13, 15; see also
Non-Final Act. 3^4. Thus, the sensor information indicates that the device
has experienced movement corresponding to motion consistent with a person
checking a watch. See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 10; Ans. 15; see also Fitzgerald
1143,45,47-49, Fig. 4.
Because Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6—10.
Dependent Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 11 and specifies:
the memory further stores computer-executable instructions for
controlling the at least one processor to determine in (b) that the
biometric data indicates that the apparatus has experienced
rotation about the axis when the biometric data indicates that
10
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
the apparatus has experienced rotation about the axis within a
predetermined range of rotational rates through a substantially
continuous predetermined range of angular displacement.
App. Br. 37 (Claims App.).
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18
because the brightness adjustment described in Fitzgerald paragraph 64
“is not... at all based on any information that indicates that Fitzgerald’s
device ‘has experienced rotation about the axis within a predetermined
range of rotational rates through a substantially continuous predetermined
range of angular displacemenf as recited in claim 18.” App. Br. 26; see
Reply Br. 10—11. Appellants also assert that “there is no mention in . . .
Fitzgerald of any determination of rotational rate or angular velocity.” App.
Br. 26. In addition, Appellants contend that “Fitzgerald’s device simply
doesn’t account for whatever th[e] rotational rate is when it evaluates the
instantaneous orientation of Fitzgerald’s device.” Reply Br. 11.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that (1) Fitzgerald paragraph 64 “describes rotational
angle ranges, and further describes] the affiliated rotational rate when
stating: the angle ‘increases to -15’, and [the] ‘angle moved from -20 to -30
degrees’” and (2) “it takes time for a user to actually move from one position
or angle, to another.” Ans. 28. Paragraph 64 states:
[T]he display brightness may be gradually increased when
entering the predetermined rotational angle ranges and
gradually reduced when exiting the predetermined rotational
angle ranges. As an example, if the current angle a is at -30
degrees, the display 18 could start turning on, and as the angle a
increases to -15 [sic -25], the display gradually turns on, finally
reaching full brightness at -20 degrees. Similarly, the display
11
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
would also gradually turn off as the angle moved
from -20 to -30 degrees in the opposite motion.
Fitzgerald 1 64.
The disclosure of an angular displacement from -30° to -20°
(or from -20° to -30° in the opposite angular direction) teaches or suggests
rotation “through a substantially continuous predetermined range of angular
displacement” according to claim 18. See Ans. 28. Further, Fitzgerald
discloses detecting “rotational acceleration” and device “angles” when
tracking motion in three dimensions. Fitzgerald 43, 47. That disclosure
together with the disclosure of a gradual brightness increase (or decrease)
teaches or suggests rotational rates according to claim 18. See Ans. 28.
A reference must be considered in its entirety for what it fairly teaches or
suggests to one skilled in the art. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794
n.l (CCPA 1982); see also Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d
804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Because Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 18.
Dependent Claims 2,3,5,12-14,17, and 20-25
Claims 2, 3, and 5 depend from claim 1, while claims 12—14, 17, and
20-25 depend from claim 11. Appellants do not argue patentability
separately for these dependent claims. App. Br. 9-26; Reply Br. 3—11.
Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as claims 1
and 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
12
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 4, 15, and 19
Dependent Claims 4 and 15
Claims 4 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and
require a “backlight” that “tum[s] on from an off state responsive to (b).”
App. Br. 33, 36 (Claims App.). Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 4 and 15 because the “rapid wrist wriggling” producing the
“repeated on/off signals” that cause Sato’s lighting device to turn on “is not
‘movement. . . consistent with movements of the person’s forearm taken to
bring a watch worn on the person’s forearm into a position allowing the time
on the watch to be read by the person’ as recited in claim 1App. Br. 27.
Appellants also assert that Sato’s attitude-detection switch “does not provide
‘biometric data [that] includes data that describes three-dimensional
movement of the apparatus over time’ as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 27—28.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner relies on Fitzgerald, not Sato, for the features recited in
claim 1. Non-Final Act. 6—9; Ans. 11—14. The Examiner finds that
(1) Fitzgerald teaches a wrist-worn display device and “movement and/or
motion tracking” and (2) Sato teaches a wrist-worn display device
“including a backlight that performs activation and deactivation.” Ans. 29;
see Non-Final Act. 16—19.
Because Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 and 15.
Dependent Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and requires:
the predetermined range of rotational rates includes at least one
rotational rate selected from the group consisting of: at least 90°
per second, at least 60° per second, at least 45° per second, and
13
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
at least 30° per second and the range of angular displacement
includes at least one angular displacement selected from the
group consisting of: at least 90°, at least 60°, at least 45°, and at
least 30°.
App. Br. 37 (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19
because (1) Fitzgerald paragraph 64 “pertains to triggering functions based
on absolute angular position or orientation, not rotational motion” and
(2) “Fitzgerald does not teach that any particular angular displacement is
needed to enable the display.” App. Br. 29; see Reply Br. 13—14. In
addition, Appellants contend that “Sato does not teach the determination of
any angular velocity or rotational rate at all.” App. Br. 30; see Reply
Br. 14—16. Regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Sato Figure 11,
Appellants assert that “there is no insight provided as to how much angular
rotation the watch underwent during each of the[] transitions from an
inclination in the 6-o’clock direction to an inclination in the 12-o’clock
direction (or vice versa).” App. Br. 30.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as the Examiner determines, Fitzgerald teaches or suggests a claimed
angular-displacement range and Sato teaches or suggests a claimed
rotational-rate range. See Non-Final Act. 5—6, 18—19; Ans. 23—24, 30—31.
In particular, the Examiner finds that “Fitzgerald teaches a range of angular
displacement that includes at least one angular displacement” according to
claim 19. Non-Final Act. 18 (citing Fitzgerald 37, 48-49, 64, Fig. 5);
Ans. 23 (citing Fitzgerald 37, 48-49, 64, Fig. 5). The table in Fitzgerald
paragraph 48 specifies rotational angles defining the preferred viewable
range, e.g., x-axis rotation from -30° to +180°, y-axis rotation from -45° to
14
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
+45°, and z-axis rotation from -90° to +180° for the right wrist. Fitzgerald
148 ; see Non-Final Act. 2, 5. An initial position outside the viewable range
may require an angular displacement of at least 30° to reach the viewable
range. For instance, an initial y-axis position of either -90° or +90° would
require an angular displacement of 45° to reach the viewable range, e.g.,
counterclockwise rotation from -90° to -45° or clockwise rotation from +90°
to +45°. Fitzgerald paragraph 64 discloses angular displacement in a single
direction. Fitzgerald 1 64.
Further, the Examiner finds that “Sato teaches that rotational rate may
be determined in the course of selectively activating [and] deactivating a
display device worn on a wrist.” Non-Final Act. 18 (citing Sato Figs. 7, 11);
Ans. 23 (citing Sato Figs. 7, 11). Sato Figure 11 depicts an output signal as
an attitude-detection switch cycles between the 6-o’clock direction and the
12-o’clock direction six times in three seconds. Sato 2:45—47, 6:1—5,
Fig. 11. The Examiner identifies a 90°-swing between directions.
Non-Final Act. 6, 18; Ans. 23; see App. Br. 30 n.3. Sato Figure 8 shows the
attitude-detection switch inclined in the lowest 6-o’clock position at
approximately -45° relative to horizontal to produce an On signal, while
Figure 9 shows the attitude-detection switch inclined in the lowest
12-o’clock position at approximately +45° relative to horizontal to produce
an Off signal. Sato 2:35—42, 5:2—8, 5:27—32, 6:18—23, Figs. 8—9. Hence,
Figures 8 and 9 illustrate a 90°-swing to transition from either Off to On or
from On to Off. Six Off-to-On and On-to-Off cycles (6* 180°) in three
seconds corresponds to a rotational rate of 360° per second.
In addition, Sato discloses using four Off-to-On and On-to-Off cycles
instead of six Off-to-On and On-to-Off cycles. Sato 10:1—22. FourOff-to-
15
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
On and On-to-Off cycles (4*180°) in three seconds corresponds to a
rotational rate of 240° per second.
“[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual
references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures
taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); see In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the combination of disclosures in Fitzgerald
and Sato taken as a whole teaches or suggests claim 19’s subject matter.
Moreover, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges
by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 19 recites open-ended rotational-rate ranges as well as open-ended
angular-displacement ranges. Appellants do not direct us to any evidence
that ascertaining rotational rates and angular displacements within the
recited ranges would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)).
Because Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—15 and 17—26.
16
Appeal 2017-007477
Application 14/045,563
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
17