Ex Parte Hammerschmidt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2017

13751335 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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.
13/751,335 01/28/2013 Dirk Hammerschmidt SPLPl 10US 9067
51092 7590 12/27/2017
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
PHAM, QUANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2017 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):
docketing @ eschweilerlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK HAMMERSCHMIDT
Appeal 2017-003020
Application 13/751,335
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—24, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed Jan. 28, 2013; Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Aug. 17, 2016; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
Dec. 5, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Oct.
5, 2016; and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed Jan.
29, 2016.
Appeal 2017-003020
Application 13/751,335
Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns signal generators, decoders,
methods for generating a transmit signal and programs for generating a
transmit signal, the signal generator including a signal processing unit
configured to generate a transmit signal including information (pulses)
associated with a detected event and additional data, where the pulses are
separated by differing time intervals, the additional data includes a frame
that further includes a predefined number of additional data bits, and the
frame is distributed over at least two differing time intervals. (Spec. 1, 4—
8, 29, 37—43, Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
1. A signal generator comprising:
a signal provider configured to provide a sensor signal
indicating a repeatedly detected event, occurring within differing
time intervals; and
a signal processing unit configured to generate a transmit
signal based on the sensor signal,
wherein the transmit signal comprises event information
representing the temporal occurrence of the event and additional
information representing additional data,
wherein the event information comprises pulses or signal
edges associated with detected events,
wherein the pulses or signal edges are temporally
separated within the transmit signal according to the differing
time intervals of detected events so that each time interval of the
differing time intervals comprises one pulse or one signal edge
associated to a detected event,
2
Appeal 2017-003020
Application 13/751,335
wherein the additional data comprises at least one frame
comprising a predefined number of additional data bits, and
wherein the information of the additional data bits of the
at least one frame is distributed over at least two time intervals
of the differing time intervals.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 6—11, 16—19, and 21—24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lohberg et al. (US
6,542,847 Bl, issued Apr. 1, 2003) (“Lohberg”), Zinke et al. (US 6,480,138
Bl, issued Nov. 12, 2002) (“Zinke”), and Heim (US 2013/0101065 Al,
published Apr. 25, 2013 (filed May 23, 2011)).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 12—15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lohberg, Zinke, Heim, and Philips
Semiconductors Data Sheet KMI22/1 Rotational Speed Sensor for Extended
Air Gap Application and Direction Detection (Sept. 4, 2000) (“Philips”).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant’s contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in combining Lohberg, Zinke, and Heim and
finding the combination of Lohberg, Zinke, and Heim would have taught or
suggested the recited features of Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate
limitations of claims 17, 18, and 21—24?
3
Appeal 2017-003020
Application 13/751,335
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims
17, 18, and 21—24) as being obvious in view of Lohberg, Zinke, and Heim.
See Final Act. 5—9; Ans. 3—6. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
findings with respect to the teachings of the cited prior art references;
instead, Appellant contends the Examiner improperly combined Lohberg
and Zinke. See App. Br. 6—13; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically, Appellant
contends, inter alia, that Lohberg “employs use of all 9 bits 0-8 within each
distinct time period” and “one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to modify Lohberg et al. in view of Zinke et al., as a modification
of Lohberg et al. would require removing at least some of the 0-8 bits, and
therefore render Lohberg et al. as modified unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose” (App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted)). See App. Br. 7—13; Reply Br. 2—
3.
We agree with Appellant that Lohberg does not “contemplate a
variable amount of information to be included between the respective
pulses.” App. Br. 9. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how or
why one of ordinary skill would have combined the fixed bit length signal of
Lohberg (see Lohberg col. 2,1. 40-col. 4,1. 26; Figs. 2, 3) with the variable
bit length signal of Zinke (see Zinke col. 1,1. 65— col. 3,1. 32; Figs, la—2b).
Further, as Appellant points out (App. Br. 8), Lohberg and Zinke adopt
different approaches for dealing with changes in frequency of a sensed
event, with Lohberg varying the duration of pause region 50 {id. (citing
Lohberg, col. 4,11. 29-33 and Fig. 2) and Zinke removing bits of additional
information (id.; Zinke Figs, la—2b). The Examiner states that a person of
4
Appeal 2017-003020
Application 13/751,335
ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references “to
include additional] data in the transmitted signal based on the rotational
speed of the vehicle” (Final Act. 8), but does not explain how changing from
Lohberg’s approach to Zinke’s approach would result in such additional
data. The Examiner then states that “when there isn’t sufficient time
available in a particular time interval duration for insertion of all the
additional information intended for transmission, a subset of the additional
information deemed most relevant may be selected for insertion and
transmission as taught by Zinke.” Ans. 5. This finding, however, merely
explains Zinke’s teaching without adequately addressing why a person of
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine that teaching with
Lohberg. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
adequately explained the apparent reason for combining Lohberg and Zinke.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lohberg, Zinke, and
Heim renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 17, 18, and
21—24 include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2—4,
6—11, 16, and 19 depend on and fall with claims 1 and 18, respectively.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5, 12—15,
and 20, the Examiner has not established on this record that the additionally
cited Philips reference overcomes or cures the aforementioned deficiencies
of Lohberg and Zinke. Dependent claims 5, 12—15, and 20 depend on
claims 1 and 18, respectively. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—24.
5
Appeal 2017-003020
Application 13/751,335
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24.
REVERSED
6