Ex Parte Czompo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2017

12475262 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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. 12/475,262 05/29/2009 Joseph Czompo QC090110 3159 12371 7590 08/30/2017 Mnnrv rre.issle.r Olrk & T owe P P /OT TAT POMM EXAMINER 4000 Legato Road, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2864 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2017 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): meo.docket@mg-ip.com meo@mg-ip.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH CZOMPO and ARA BICAKCI Appeal 2016-001067 Application 12/475,262 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS, and MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification dated May 29, 2009 (Spec.), Final Office Action dated March 18, 2014 (Final), the Appeal Brief dated August 13, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer dated November 10, 2014 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief dated March 27, 2015 (Reply Br.). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as QUALCOMM Incorporated. Appeal 2016-001067 Application 12/475,262 obvious over Snell3 in view of Storey.4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method, article, and apparatus for accurate acquisition of inertial sensor data (see, e.g., claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 43). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: receiving a plurality of signals generated by a plurality of sensors configured to detect physical movement of a mobile device with respect to a plurality of coordinate axes; and delaying a time at which at least one of the received signals is digitized to provide an output of digitized versions of the received plurality of signals synchronized with respect to a common point in time, wherein the delaying is utilized to facilitate the synchronization. Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added). OPINION All of Appellants’ claims require either a step involving delaying a time at which at least one of the signals received by a plurality of sensors is digitized (see, e.g., claims 1 and 43) or an apparatus or article that performs this step (see, e.g., claims 12, 23, and 34). Snell discloses that filtering the data from sensors, such as those used by Appellants, may result in a response lag that may be overcome by 3 Snell, US 4,608,641, issued Aug. 26, 1986. 4 Storey US 6,381,340 Bl, issued Apr. 30, 2002. 2 Appeal 2016-001067 Application 12/475,262 delaying other data by an amount of time similar to the lag. Snell col. 3,11. 34-41; col. 7,11. 56-65. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner acknowledges that Snell fails to expressly disclose that the signals are digitized and turns to Storey for a teaching of digitizing the output of signals from similar sensors. Final 2. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Snell’s invention to have a digitalization of the output signals of sensors because digital signals are more precise than analog signals.” Final 2—3. There is really no question that it would have been obvious to digitize the signals from Snell’s sensors. The problem is, as pointed out by Appellants (Appeal Br. 7), the claims require more: The claims require “delaying a time at which at least one of the received signals is digitized.” See, e.g., claim 1 (emphasis added). A “time at which” is a point in time. Thus, the Examiner had to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have delayed at the time at which digitizing occurs. In essence, the claim is not open to performing the delay at any arbitrary time during the processing of the signal, but requires the delay be performed when the signal is digitized. The Examiner provides no reasoning supported by evidence indicating there is a reason or suggestion within the art to perform the delay at the point in time required by the claims. Ans. 3^4. In fact, the Examiner states that “Snell teaches delaying and synchronizing the data before digitizing them in the comparator 24 of figure 2.” Ans. 4. The Examiner provides no further reasoning explaining how placing the analog to digital converters 24A—24C of Storey into the navigational system of Snell shown in Snell’s Figure 2 would result in 3 Appeal 2016-001067 Application 12/475,262 delaying a time at which the received signals are digitized. Without such an explanation, the basis for the rejection is unclear. Given the lack of supporting explanation, we determine that the Examiner reversibly erred. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 4