Ex Parte Stienstra

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

10477492 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

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. 10/477,492 11/12/2003 Marcelle Andrea Stienstra NL 010322 7484 7590 09/25/2012 Philips Electronics North America Corporation Corporate Patent Counsel PO Box 3001 Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 EXAMINER ROSWELL, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2012 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 MARCELLE ANDREA STIENSTRA ____________________ Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DAVID M. KOHUT, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Marcelle Andrea Stienstra, the Appellant, 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-13. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Koninklijke Phillips Electronics N.V. Appeal Brief filed on July 9, 2009 (“App. Br.”). 2 App. Br. 6; Final Office Action mailed on February 13, 2009; Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 29, 2009 (“Ans”) at 2. Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s claims are generally directed to a system for transforming real- time streams of content into a presentation to be output. See generally Abstract. Application FIG. 2, as reproduced below, is helpful in understanding the invention. FIG. 2 depicts a user interface arranged to allow a user to interact with streams of content, via output device 15 As shown in FIG. 2, the user interface includes a plurality of sensors 32 positioned around an interaction area 36 to determine a three-dimensional (3-D) location in which a movement or sound is detected from a user within the interaction area 36 (Spec. pg. 6, ll. 6-9). Each sensor 32 includes a motion sensor 34 for detecting user movements or gestures, a sound-detecting sensor 33 (e.g., a microphone) for detecting sounds made by a user, or a combination of both a motion sensor 34 and a sound-detecting sensor 33 (Spec. pg. 6, ll. 9-13). Alternatively, the sensors can also be a grid of piezoelectric cables covering the Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 3 floor of the interaction area 36 to sense the location and force of footsteps made by a user (Spec. pg. 8, ll. 34-36). One or more streams of content can then be manipulated and controlled for presentation, via an output device 15, based on the type of movements or sounds detected within the interaction area 36 (Spec. pg. 6, ll. 15-25; pg. 10, ll. 1-24). Claims on Appeal Claims 1-3 and 6-13 are on appeal. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A user interface for interacting with a device that receives and transforms streams of content into a presentation to be output, comprising: an interaction area; a plurality of sensors, located external to said interaction area, for detecting a movement or sound made by a user within said interaction area, wherein detection signals from at least two of said plurality of sensors are substantially simultaneously received and analyzed to determine a location within said interaction area in which said detected movement or sound occurs, and wherein one or more streams of content are manipulated based on said detected movement or sound, and wherein the presentation is controlled based on said manipulated streams of content. Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 4 Evidence Considered The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Best U.S. 4,569,026 Feb. 4, 1986 Gurner U.S. 5,442,168 Aug. 15, 1995 Iannazo U.S. 5,882,204 Mar. 16, 1999 Flack U.S. 6,288,704 B1 Sep. 11, 2001 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1-3 and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurner et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,442,168 (Gurner ‘168) in view of Iannozo, U.S. Patent No. 5,882,204 (Iannozo ‘204). Ans. 3-6. (2) Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurner ‘168 and Iannozo ‘204, and further in view of Best, U.S. Patent No. 4,569,026 (Best ‘026). Ans. 6-7. (2) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurner ‘168 and Iannozo ‘204, and further in view of Flack et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,288,704 (Flack ‘704). Ans. 8. II. ISSUES The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 because the teachings of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 are not compatible and, therefore, cannot be combined in the manner suggested by the Examiner. In particular, the issue turns on whether: Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 5 (a) the teaching of Iannazo ‘204 that “detection signals from at least two of said plurality of sensors are substantially simultaneously received and analyzed to determine a location within said interaction area in which said detected movement or sound occurs” can be incorporated into an optical controller of Gurner ‘168 in order to arrive at claim 1; and (b) the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 in order to arrive at claim 1. III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following findings of facts (FF) are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). Gurner ‘168 1. Gurner ‘168 discloses an optical controller 136 for use on a video game system 138, 144, and 148, shown in FIG. 9 as reproduced below, that can accommodate video games of action such as boxing, martial arts, sports, etc., while permitting the player 146 to act out the role of the video character in real life simulation (see col. 2, ll. 54-60). Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 6 Figure 9 is reproduced below: FIG. 9 depicts a video game operation 2. According to Gurner ‘168, the optical controller 136 includes eight (8) panels 132-136 positioned around an interaction area to determine the movements of a user (player) within the interaction area. Each panel 10 is provided with a sensor 15 to detect and distinguish between the movements of hand/arm or foot/leg of the user (player) within the interaction area. Based on changes in the radiation received by the various sensors 15, the movements of the user (player) are then translated into simultaneous movements of a corresponding video character 148, via a central processor. (See col. 10, ll. 43-48; col. 16, ll. 19-42). Iannazo ‘204 3. Iannazo ‘204 disclose a sports simulation trainer 11, shown in FIG. 1 as reproduced below, for quarterbacks and kickers provides true perspective views of a simulated playing area during practice plays (see col. 1, ll. 44-47). Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 7 Figure 1 is reproduced below: FIG. 1 depicts a sport simulation trainer 4. According to Iannazo ‘204, the trainer includes an actual playing area 17 and a simulated playing area 19 provided by video wall 21 as a continuation of playing area 17, and a sonic tracking system 32 to detect and analyze motion of objects such as players and the football in actual playing area 17 (See col. 2, ll. 60- 67; col. 3, ll. 63-65). The tracking system 32 has a plurality of ultrasonic transducers 33, 35 spaced apart around the perimeter of an actual playing area 17 for detecting positions of the training player and motion of the football during a practice play. (See col. 3, ll. 65-67). The transducers 33, 35 are selectively grouped and directed in selected directions to establish regions of overlap so that several of the transducers 33, 35 will simultaneously detect the positions of the training player and several of the transducers 33, 35 will simultaneously detect the motion of the football. (See col. 4, ll. 1-12). Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 8 IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES Claim Construction "[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Obviousness Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405 (2007). In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” id. at 415, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious without an explicit application of the teaching, suggestion, motivation (TMS) test. In particular, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. The Court explained: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 9 predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at 417. The operative question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. The Supreme Court made clear that: [f]ollowing these principles may be more difficult in other cases than it is here because the claimed subject matter may involve more than the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement. Id. The Court explained: [o]ften, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. Id. at 418. Consequently, as long as there is “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue,” and the Examiner has provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” the rejections based on obviousness can be Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 10 sustained. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Such a reason may be found in “interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of [design or marketplace] demands . . . and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 V. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections and the Examiner’s responses in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the final Office Action, and (2) the detailed findings and responses set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to each of the arguments raised by Appellant in the Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further emphasize the following: Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends that the combination of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 is improper because Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 utilize two different and incompatible techniques to determine a user position (App. Br. 9- 11). In particular, Appellant argues that Iannazo ‘204 “requires simultaneous measurement by several transducer detectors [sensors] … to determine a player's position in 3-dimensional space”, whereas Gurner ‘168 “teaches to avoid such simultaneous measurements” (App. Br. 10). Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 11 We disagree. As properly noted by the Examiner, Gurner ‘168 already discloses the use of a plurality of sensors 15 to determine a position of a user in an interaction area based on “changes in the radiation received by the various sensors” (see col. 10, ll. 47-48 of Gurner ‘168; Ans. 9). Iannazo ‘204 simply suggests the simultaneous measurement by transducers (sensors) to determine a position of a user (player) in an interaction area (see col. 3, ll. 63-67; col. 4, ll. 1-12). The specific tracking technique of Iannazo ‘204 need not be bodily incorporated into the optical controller of Gurner ‘168; rather, consideration should be given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In that regard, the Supreme Court has indicated that it is in error to: assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem.... Common senses teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of puzzle. KSR at 420 (2007) (citation omitted). Furthermore, a skilled artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment (see Lear Seigler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As such, we see no reason why the simultaneous sensor measurement as suggested by Iannazo ‘204 cannot be implemented into the optical controller of Gurner ‘168, as both Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 are directed towards the same Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 12 central purpose, “providing control signals in response to the ‘dynamic stimuli’ of a user position in an interactive area” as correctly noted by the Examiner (Ans. 9). Such an implementation is simply a substitution of one element for another known in the field - an obvious improvement. See KSR at 417. Appellant further contends that there is no motivation to combine Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 in the manner claimed in claim 1. In particular, Appellant argues that Gurner ‘168 teaches away from the 3-dimensional detection method employed by Iannazo ‘204. We also disagree. The 3-dimensional detection method employed by Iannazo ‘204 is not being incorporated into Gurner ‘168; rather, the suggestion from Iannazo ‘204 of the simultaneous measurement by transducers (sensors) to determine a position of a user (player) in an interaction area (see col. 3, ll. 63-67; col. 4, ll. 1-12). Moreover, and as correctly noted by the Examiner, Gurner ‘168 does not preclude “simultaneous measurement” and in no way “teaches away” from the simultaneous detection method of Iannazo ‘204 (Ans. 9). Dependent claims 2-3 and 6-8 Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 2-3 and 6-8. App. Br. 12 and 13. As such, these claims fall with independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 13 Dependent claims 11-13 Appellant further contends that neither Gurner ‘168 nor Iannazo ’204 discloses or suggests detection of movements by more than one user in the interaction area. App. Br. 12. However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Iannazo ‘204 discloses the sonic tracking system that tracks the motion of a plurality of objects “such as training players and the football” (see col. 3, ll. 63-65; col. 6, ll. 38-43; Ans. 10) Appellant’s arguments have not demonstrated why multiple users cannot be monitored in the optical controller of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204. We hold that the mere combining of multiple users would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. We do so because “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420. VI. CONCLUSION 3 (a) The Examiner did not err in finding that Iannazo ‘204 teaches or suggests “detection signals from at least two of said plurality of 3 In the event of further prosecution, independent claims 1, 9, and 10 should be evaluated for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Gurner ‘168 independently from Iannazo ‘204, as Gurner ‘168 teaches the use of eight (8) sensors 15 (see FIGS. 1, 2A, 9, and 10) to sense movements of a user within an interaction area and detection signals from those sensors 156 are received and processed by a central processor (see FIG. 4) to determine movements (or location) within the interaction area. Appeal 2010-006020 Application 10/477,492 14 sensors are substantially simultaneously received and analyzed to determine a location within said interaction area in which said detected movement or sound occurs” can be incorporated into an optical controller of Gurner ‘168 in order to arrive at claim 1. (b) The Examiner did not err in combining the teachings and suggestions of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 in order to arrive at claim 1. VII. DECISION As such, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions to reject claims 1-3 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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)(v) (2009). AFFIRMED ELD