Ex Parte Kohn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 2018

13991520 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/991,520 08/23/2013 24972 7590 06/29/2018 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Oliver Kohn 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. BOSC.P7738US/1000366419 8263 EXAMINER YANG, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2018 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): nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLIVER KOHN, DANIEL SCHIFFERDECKER, THOMAS CLAUS, HANS-PETER WAIBLE, ANTON ROMAN GRAD, FOUAD BENNIN!, and JULIAN BARTHOLOMEYCZIK Appeal2018-001424 Application 13/991,520 Technology Center 2600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 9 and 11-19, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify ROBERT BOSCH GmbH as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-001424 Application 13/991,520 Introduction "The present invention relates to a method for transferring data from a sensor module." Spec. 1 :2-3. Appellants' Specification explains that having a sensor module transmit interrupt and/or event information to an application unit along with the sensor data provides advantages over prior methods of communicating information between a sensor module and an application unit. Spec 2: 19-31. Claim 9 is illustrative of the pending claims, reproduced here with a dispositive disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 9. A method for transmitting at least one data element from a sensor module to an application unit, comprising: producing, by the sensor module, sensor data; producing, in an evaluation circuit, a corresponding item of event information from the sensor data; storing a data element in a ring buffer in the sensor module, the data element including the sensor data and the item of event information; and transmitting the data element from the ring buffer to the application unit upon request by the application unit, wherein the data element has a first data word length, the sensor data having a second data word length, the first data word length being larger than the second data word length, wherein the item of event information has a third word length, wherein the third word length is a difference between the first data word length and the second data word length, and wherein the item of event information includes at least one of an item of information concerning a triggered 2 Appeal2018-001424 Application 13/991,520 sensor axis, a type of an interrupt, and a type of exceeded threshold. App. Br., Claims App'x 1. Rejection Claims 9 and 11-19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Husheer (US 2009/0234200 Al; pub. Sept. 17, 2009). Final Act. 2-10. ANALYSIS Appellants argue, inter alia, 2 the Examiner errs in finding Husheer teaches or suggests "storing a data element in a ring buffer in the sensor module, the data element including the sensor data and the item of event information," as recited in claim 9. There is no dispute over the Examiner's finding that Husheer teaches producing sensor data and storing it in a ring buffer in a sensor module. See Final Act 3 (citing Husheer ,r,r 92, 120). Appellants contend, however, the Examiner errs in finding Husheer teaches or suggests storing in the ring buffer an "item of event information" that is included in a data element that also includes the sensor data, as required by claim 9. App. Br. 5---6. The Examiner finds Husheer's computing of time-averaged values for sensor data teaches the recited "item of event information" and that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to temporarily store the calculated average value in the ring buffer prior to storing the average value in memory, as is known in the art." Final Act. 3 ( citing Husheer ,r 120); see also Ans. 3 (finding "[ o ]ne of ordinary 2 We do not address Appellants' arguments beyond those that provide the basis for our decision as discussed below. 3 Appeal2018-001424 Application 13/991,520 skill in the art would [have found it] obvious, at least to try, to temporarily store data in the circular buffer when calculating an average value of a plurality of stored data"). There is no dispute that Husheer teaches or suggests "an item of event information." The dispute concerns the Examiner's finding that it would have been obvious to store that the calculated time-averaged values ( corresponding to the recited "event information") with the sensor data that is temporarily stored in the ring buffer, as required by claim 9. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not sufficiently support the finding that Husheer teaches or suggests storing the computed average value in the ring buffer. See Reply Br. 5-7 (citing Husheer ,r,r 109, 120-21 ). Husheer teaches that the purpose of its circular ( ring) buffer is to provide a "sliding window" of the recent sensor data for use in computing averages. Husheer ,r 120. Husheer's separate disclosure of storing the computed average "in memory" (id.) on its face indicates storage separate from the circular buffer, which is a data structure that specifically facilitates efficient storage and retrieval the most recent individual sensor data values. In other words, because inserting average values into the circular buffer would be an unnecessary complication of the described purpose for the buffer, we agree with Appellants that a fair reading of Husheer teaches or suggests storing only sensor source data in the ring buffer. Reply Br. 5-7. Thus, on the record before us, the Examiner proffers no sufficient rationale for why it would have been obvious to ordinarily skilled artisan to insert computed averages into Husheer' s ring buffer. Accordingly, we do not sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9 and, for the same reasons, of independent claims 15 and 16, which contain 4 Appeal2018-001424 Application 13/991,520 commensurate limitations and stand similarly rejected. We also, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11-14 and 17-19. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 9 and 11-19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 5