Ex Parte Xue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13282851 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
13/282,851 10/27/2011 Bin Xue MVIS 10-41 1978
26943 7590
MICROVISION, INC.
6244 185TH AVENUE NE
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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):
LEGAL@MICROVISION.COM
KEVIN_WILLS @MICRO VISION.COM
LINDSEY_STIBBARD@MICROVISION.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIN XUE, ROBERT JAMES JACKSON, JOSHUA O. MILLER,
STEVE HOLMES, and MARGARET K. BROWN
Appeal 2016-000537
Application 13/282,851
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—14 and 21—26, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 15—20 and 27-45 have been
canceled. Final Act. 1—2; App. Br. I.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed Oct. 27, 2011 and
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Feb. 25, 2015. We also refer to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 8, 2015, and Final Office Action
(Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed Oct. 29, 2014.
Appeal 2016-000537
Application 13/282,851
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns laser based distance
measurement systems, mobile devices including a laser scanning projector,
and apparatus including lase light sources and pulse shaping circuits. Spec.
1:5-19; 3:2AA:4; 4:19-28; Abstract.
Illustrative Claims
Independent claims 1 and 21, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrate the invention:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a laser light source;
a pulse shaping circuit to drive the laser light source with
pulses having an abrupt change in amplitude;
a photodetector to detect reflected light pulses;
a differentiator coupled to the photodetector to
differentiate detected pulses;
a compression circuit to compress output signals from the
differentiator;
an amplifier to receive compressed signals from the
compression circuit and to generate differential output signals;
a detection circuit to detect when the differential output
signals cross each other; and
an integrator responsive to the detection circuit for time
measurement.
21. A mobile device comprising:
a scanning laser projector having at least one visible laser
light source and a scanning mirror; and
a time of flight distance measurement device that includes
a nonvisible laser light source to illuminate the scanning mirror
with laser light pulses, and that includes a receive signal path that
2
Appeal 2016-000537
Application 13/282,851
differentiates signals representing reflected laser light pulses,
and a power control circuit responsive to the receive signal path;
wherein the power control circuit modifies a power level
of a second train of light pulses emitted by the nonvisible laser
light source in response to reflections from a first train of light
pulses emitted by the nonvisible laser light source.
References and Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sprague et al. (US 2008/0230611 Al,
published Sept. 25, 2008) (“Sprague”), Bodlaj (US 3,954,335, issued May 4,
1976) (“Bodlaj”), and Minzoni (US 2007/0046329 Al, published Mar. 1,
2007) (“Minzoni”).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sprague, Bodlaj, Minzoni, and Plettner et al. (US
2009/0314949 Al, published Dec. 24, 2009) (“Plettner”).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 4—8 and 11—14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sprague, Bodlaj, Minzoni, and Shimada
et al. (US 2003/0010888 Al, published Jan. 16, 2003) (“Shimada”).
4. The Examiner rejects claims 21—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2010/0156863 Al, published June
24, 2010) (“Brown”), Shimada, and Bodlaj.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 24—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2010/0156863 Al, published June
24, 2010) (“Brown”), Shimada, Bodlaj, and Minzoni.
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
3
Appeal 2016-000537
Application 13/282,851
before us follow:
1. Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Sprague, Bodlaj, and Minzoni collectively would have taught or suggested
“a pulse shaping circuit to drive the laser light source with pulses having an
abrupt change in amplitude,” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and
the commensurate limitations of claim 9?
2. Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Brown, Shimada, and Bodlaj collectively would have taught or suggested
“the power control circuit modifying] a power level of a second train of
light pulses emitted by the nonvisible laser light source in response to
reflections from a first train of light pulses emitted by the nonvisible laser
light source,” as recited in Appellants’ claim 21?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 in view of Sprague, Bodlaj,
and Minzoni. See Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3—5. Appellants contend that
Sprague, Bodlaj, and Minzoni do not teach the disputed features of claim 1.
App. Br. 3—9. Specifically, Appellants contend that “Bodlaj fails to teach
shaping signals that drive a light source” (App. Br. 8) and that “Bodlaj’s
wave shaper 8 is used to generate waveforms that drive the mirror and not
the laser generator” (App. Br 5 (citing Bodlaj col. 2,11. 53—55; Fig. 1)).
The Examiner rejects independent claim 21 in view of Brown,
Shimada, and Bodlaj. See Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 5. Appellants contend that
Brown, Shimada, and Bodlaj do not teach the disputed features of claim 21.
App. Br. 5, 9-10. Specifically, Appellants contend that “Bodlaj does not
describe the automatic gain control controlling power levels of laser light
4
Appeal 2016-000537
Application 13/282,851
emitted from the laser light source” and “Bodlaj shows no feedback path to
control the power of the light source” (App. Br. 9) and that “Bodlaj clearly
shows laser generator 12 as a stand-alone unit with no power control
provided by amplifier 19 or any gain control that may be included in
amplifier 19” (App. Br 5 (citing Bodlaj Fig. 1)).
We agree with Appellants that Bodlaj does not teach the disputed
features of claims 1 and 21. In particular, we agree with Appellants that
Bodlaj describes the wave shaper driving Bodlaj’s optical deflector and
mirror, not Bodlaj’s laser generator (see Bodlaj Fig. 1; col. 2,11. 53—55), and
that Bodlaj does not describe the amplifier in any way affecting the power
output by the laser generator (see Bodlaj Fig. 1; col. 3,11. 4—33).
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding that Sprague, Bodlaj, and Minzoni teach
the disputed limitations of Appellants’ claim 1 and claim 9. Dependent
claims 2—8 and 10-14 depend on claims 1 and 9, respectively. We are also
constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that Brown, Shimada, and Bodlaj teach the disputed limitations
of Appellants’ claim 21. Dependent claims 22—25 depend on claim 21.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—
14 and 21-26.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—
14 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal 2016-000537
Application 13/282,851
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 and 21—26.
REVERSED
6