Ex Parte Xue et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201713282851 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation