Ex Parte Helbing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2015

11500149 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RENE HELBING and ANNETTE C. GROT ____________________ Appeal 2012-001957 Application 11/500,149 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction Appeal 2012-001957 Application 11/500,149 2 According to Appellants, the claims are directed to an inertial input apparatus and method with optical motion state detection. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising: an inertia sensing system operable to generate inertial data indicative of movement in relation to an inertial reference frame; an optical motion sensing system operable to generate optical data from received light; and a processing system operable to determine movement measures from the inertial data and to select one of an in- motion output state and a motionless output state based on the optical data, wherein, during the in-motion output state, the processing system produces an output corresponding to the movement measures and, during the motionless output state, the processing system produces an output indicative of zero motion regardless of the inertial data. REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: (1) Claims 1, 6–11, 18, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2005/0135659 A1; June 23, 2005) and Tsai et al (US 2006/0256077 A1; Nov. 16, 2006). Ans. 3. (2) Claims 2–5, 12–17, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith, Tsai, and Glynn (US 5,181,181; Jan. 19, 1993). Ans. 6. Appeal 2012-001957 Application 11/500,149 3 We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 6–11, 18, 19, and 22 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Smith and Tsai. App. Br. 5–6. Thus, the issues presented by the arguments are: Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Smith and Tsai teaches or suggests “during the motionless output state, the processing system produces an output indicative of zero motion regardless of the inertial data” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 18 and 19? Issue 1b: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings of Smith and Tsai? ANALYSIS Appellants argue Smith teaches an optical motion sensing system, not an inertia sensing system. App. Br. 6. Therefore, Appellants contend because the system of Smith does not use any inertial data, Smith fails to teach or suggest disregarding the inertial data. Id. Appellants further argue Tsai teaches an inertial sensing input apparatus for which first and second inertial parts produce inertial data. Id. Thus, according to Appellants, because the inertial data produced by the first Appeal 2012-001957 Application 11/500,149 4 and second inertial parts are regarded, Tsai does not teach “the processing system produces an output indicative of zero motion regardless of the inertial data.” Id. at 6–7. Appellants next argue the combination of Smith and Tsai would use two sets of data, resulting in four possibilities, and the combination of the references fails to teach how to deal with two sets of motion related data when they conflict. Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded. The Examiner is relying on the combination of Smith and Tsai to teach or suggest the invention as recited. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 10–11. We particularly agree with the Examiner that because Smith does not use inertial data, if no motion or movement were sensed, the processor would output zero motion regardless of the inertial data. Ans. 11. Appellants additionally contend an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have found it obvious to modify Smith with the teachings of Tsai. Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner’s reasoning “fails to support an argument for including the inertial sensing system in an input device with an optical sensing system . . . .” App. Br. 8. According to Appellants, the Examiner has not provided any reasoning that is rational for the device to include both the inertial sensing system and the optical sensing system. Id.; Reply Br. 4–5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and determinations. Ans. 5, 11. Specifically, the Examiner states including Tsai’s inertial sensing system into the system of Smith would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, to determine Appeal 2012-001957 Application 11/500,149 5 movement no matter whether the device is on the surface or in free space. Id. Thus, according to the Examiner, the device would be permitted to correctly display cursor movement. Id. It follows, we determine the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning. Appellants additionally argue Tsai teaching away from using both an inertial and an optical sensing system in an input device. App. Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 5–6. Appellants also contend Tsai’s discussion of drawbacks of using a mouse with inertial gyroscopic elements teachings away from using both sensing systems. App. Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 5–6. We agree with the Examiner that Tsai does not teach away from the present invention. Ans. 11. We are not persuaded an ordinarily artisan, upon reading Tsai, would be discouraged from following or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by Appellants. Tsai discusses the pricing and power consumption and tracing capability inferiority of a device, which does not rise to “teaching away” from the present invention. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Smith and Tsai teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited claims 18 and 19. We are further not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined the teachings of Smith and Tsai. Claims 6–11 and 22 were not separately argued and therefore, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6–11, 18, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Smith and Tsai. Appeal 2012-001957 Application 11/500,149 6 ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2–5, 12–17, 20, 21, and 23 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Smith, Tsai, and Glynn. App. Br. 10–13. The issues presented by these arguments are: Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Smith, Tsai, and Glynn teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 3 and 20; claims 15 and 23; and claims 16 and 17? ANALYSIS With respect to claims 3 and 20, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Specifically, Appellants contend the cited description in Glynn teaches detecting translational accelerations and rotational angular rates, but does not teach any static position. App. Br. 11. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Ans. 7–8, 11–12. Specifically, the Examiner states Glynn teaches “translational accelerations and rotational angular rates where the processor determines movements based on the reference frames and accelerations and angular rates.” Id. (citing Glynn, 6:3–26). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Glynn teaches determining motion measure from the accelerometer output and the measures of static tilt. Ans. 12. Moreover, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to include motion measures of Glynn’s accelerometer into the system of Smith to determine any type of movement. Id. at 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 20. Appeal 2012-001957 Application 11/500,149 7 With respect to claims 15 and 16, Appellants contend the cited portions of Glynn “only deal with data from rotational rate sensors and accelerometers” and do not discuss optical data or intensity measures of optical data. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6–8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner is relying on Smith for teaching optical data and Glynn for teaching calculation of intensity measures and averages. Ans. 12. Appellants appear to be arguing the references individually while the Examiner is relying on the combination. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 16. The remaining claims were not separately argued. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Smith, Tsai, and Glynn teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claims 2–5, 12–17, 20, 21, and 23. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–5, 12–17, 20, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Smith, Tsai, and Glynn. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6–11, 18, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith and Tsai is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 12–17, 20, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith, Tsai, and Glynn is affirmed. 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