Ex Parte Chan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 25, 2014

12215705 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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. 12/215,705 06/27/2008 Alistair K. Chan 0507-006-003-000000 6372 44765 7590 09/25/2014 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE 11235 SE 6TH STREET SUITE 200 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 EXAMINER CRAIG, DWIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2014 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 ALISTAIR K. CHAN, RODERICK A. HYDE, JORDIN T. KARE, and LOWELL L. WOOD JR. ____________________ Appeal 2012-006561 Application 12/215,705 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-006561 Application 12/215,705 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–75,136–141,144–148,212– 220, 280–284, and 335–339. Claims 6, 8–44, 47–49, 51–66, 76–135, 142, 143, 149–211, 221–279, 285–334, and 340–344 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellants invented remote sensing techniques for detecting various environmental conditions and communicating the environmental conditions to a participant. Spec. ¶ 7. Computer simulation and modeling may be used to provide suggestions or recommendations to the participants or may be used to show observers or participants how the environmental conditions may affect the participants' performance. Id. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 136, which are reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. A method of processing wind profile information in sports applications, comprising: receiving wind profile information detected using electronic remote sensing; computer simulating at least one user action in a sports context; applying, in a computer simulation system, the received wind profile information to the at least one user action; and 1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 3, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 20, 2011), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed June 10, 2011). Appeal 2012-006561 Application 12/215,705 3 generating an estimated user result from the computer simulation system. 136. A method of processing wind profile information in sports applications, comprising: receiving wind profile information detected using electronic remote sensing; computer simulating at least one user action in a sports context; determining an objective to be achieved by the at least one user action; applying, in a computer simulation system, the received wind profile information; generating an estimated user result from the computer simulation system; and determining a suggested user action responsive to the estimated user result and the objective. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Cavallaro Howey US 6,133,946 US 6,322,455 B1 Oct. 17, 2000 Nov. 27, 2001 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220, 280–284, and 335–339 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Howey. Claims 136–141, 144, and 214 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro.2 2 The Examiner lists claims 127–144 and 214 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro in the Final Rejection. Final Rej. 6. The Examiner then lists claims 137–144 and 214 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro in the Appeal 2012-006561 Application 12/215,705 4 ISSUES The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220, 280–284, and 335–339 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Howey turns on whether Howey discloses “wind profile information detected using electronic remote sensing.” The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 136–141, 144, and 214 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro turns on whether the combination of Howey and Cavallaro teaches or suggests “determining an objective function to be achieved by the at least one user action” and “determining a suggested user action responsive to the estimated user result and the objective function.” ANALYSIS Claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220, 280– 284, and 335–339 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Howey Appellants contend that Howey fails to disclose “wind profile information detected using electronic remote sensing,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5. Appellants specifically argue that a “wind profiler” is understood to be “a system or device which detects the wind speed and direction at various elevations above the ground using a device such as Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 7. As noted above, claims 142 and 143 have been cancelled. Accordingly, the correct listing of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro is claims 137– 141, 144, and 214. We consider this typographical error to be harmless error. Appeal 2012-006561 Application 12/215,705 5 RADAR or Sonar.” Id. Appellants further argue that the claims require that the detecting is performed via “remote sensing,” whereas Howey discloses an anemometer that requires contact with the wind and therefore cannot be remote. Id. Appellants additionally argue that Howey fails to appreciate the benefits or problems addressed by remote detecting. Id. The Examiner found that “wind profile information” encompasses wind direction and wind velocity information, as is provided by an anemometer and vane system, and is not limited to “RADAR or Sonar” as argued by Appellants. Ans. 8.3 The Examiner further found that the term “remote sensing” is not limited in scope to require the sensing being done “without making contact with the object.” Id. at 9. Consequently, the Examiner found that Howey discloses an “Optional Weather Monitoring Apparatus” that “generates wind profile information detected using electronic remote sensing.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Howey 6:52–63, Fig. 10). We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1, for example, recites “receiving wind profile information detected using electronic remote sensing.” The scope of the terms “wind profile information” and “electronic remote sensing” is not limited by the Specification or the claims. We also agree with the Examiner that “wind profile information” is not limited to information detected at various elevations above the ground by a device such 3 According to Wikipedia there are also “sonic anemometers” and “laser Doppler anemometers” which rely on sound waves and light pulses, respectively, to detect wind speed and direction and these anemometers were available at the time of the invention. See Wikipedia Anemometer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer (last visited September 25, 2014); see also, History of the Anemometer, http://www.logicenergy.com/articles/history-anemometer/ (last visited September 25, 2014). Appeal 2012-006561 Application 12/215,705 6 as RADAR or Sonar. That is, we agree that “wind profile information” encompasses the wind direction and wind velocity information provided by an anemometer and vane system, as described by Howey. We further agree with the Examiner that the Specification and claims do not limit the term “remote.” The Specification describes “a remote sensing system 160” that determines wind speed at two remote locations and provides this information to a golfer. Spec. ¶ 28. That is, the term “remote” is described in the Specification as remote from the recipient of the wind profile information. Accordingly, Appellants argument that “remote sensing” does not encompass an anemometer because an anemometer makes contact with the wind is not consistent with the Specification and, therefore, not persuasive. As found by the Examiner, Howey discloses a weather monitoring apparatus, including an anemometer and vane system, for detecting wind velocity and direction and incorporating this data into projectile calculations performed by a connected computer. Ans. 9–10 (citing Howey 6:52–63, Fig. 10); Howey 7:17–25. As such, Howey describes “wind profile information detected using electronic remote sensing.” Appellants additionally contend that the combination of Howey and Cavallaro fails to teach or suggest “determining an objective function to be achieved by the at least one user action” and “determining a suggested user action responsive to the estimated user result and the objective function,” as recited by claim 136. App. Br. 6–7. Although the Examiner’s rejection includes a typographical error in listing the claims that are obvious over Howey and Cavallaro, the Examiner found that claim 136 is anticipated by Howey. Ans. 11–12. We have decided the appeal before us. Accordingly, Appeal 2012-006561 Application 12/215,705 7 Appellants’ arguments that Cavallaro fails to disclose “determining an objective” are not persuasive because the Examiner has not relied on Cavallaro in rejecting claim 136. We further agree with the Examiner that claim 136 does not require a specific “function” but merely recites an “objective.” Ans. 11. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Howey describes an objective, including “providing the golfer with feedback relating to accuracy and distance and for displaying useful information while presenting the golfer with a variety of skill challenging, instructional and competitive options.” Howey Abstract. More specifically, Howey describes “an option for determining the accuracy, distance, and consistency of shots . . . so that the golfer is provided with highly accurate yardage information, which information will greatly assist the golfer in selecting the proper club during future rounds of golf.” Howey 9:15–33. Claims 137–141, 144, and 214 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro Appellants do not present separate arguments in support of 137–141, 144, and 214. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims for the same reasons discussed above. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220, 280–284, and 335–339 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Howey. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 136–141, 144, and 214 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro. Appeal 2012-006561 Application 12/215,705 8 DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows.  The rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 45, 46, 50, 67–74, 136, 145–148, 212, 213, 215–220, 280–284, and 335–339 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Howey is sustained.  The rejection of claims 136–141, 144, and 214 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howey and Cavallaro is sustained. 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 kme