Fitbit, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020003798 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

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.
15/370,303 12/06/2016 Kyle P. Nadeau GGLF-133 8913
100462 7590 05/03/2021
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KYLE P. NADEAU and CHRIS H. SARANTOS
____________

Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–13, 15–21, and 24–27.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Fitbit, Inc., as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 22 and 23 are cancelled, and claims 5 and 14 are objected to as
depending from a rejected base claim, but indicated to contain allowable
subject matter. Non-Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary), 13; Appeal Br.
38 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

2
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
added emphasis, is illustrative.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a wearable biological parameter sensor including:
a substrate;
a collimating light source assembly mounted to the
substrate, the collimating light source assembly configured to
emit light, wherein the light that is emitted by the collimating
light source assembly when the collimating light source
assembly is on is partially or wholly collimated light having a
first angular distribution with a first angular centroid defining a
first angular direction and wherein the first angular direction
points away from the substrate;
one or more first photodetectors; and
a first optical light field redirector positioned so as to
receive, via one or more surfaces facing towards the collimating
light source assembly, at least some of the partially or wholly
collimated light emitted by the collimating light source
assembly and configured to redirect the received partially or
wholly collimated light such that the redirected received
partially or wholly collimated light has, after exiting the first
optical light field redirector via one or more surfaces facing
away from the collimating light source assembly, a second
angular distribution with a second angular centroid defining a
second angular direction having a directional component
extending towards the one or more first photodetectors to a
greater extent than a corresponding directional component of
the first angular direction, wherein the first optical light field
redirector is optically transmissive and separate from the
collimating light source assembly.

Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–4, 6–12, 15, 16, 26, and 273 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US 2016/0058312 A1,
published March 3, 2016). Non-Final Act. 4.
2. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Han and Hyde (US 2017/0020659 A1, published Jan. 26,
2017). Non-Final Act. 10.
3. Claims 20, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Han. Non-Final Act. 11.

ANALYSIS
Rejection 1: Anticipation by Han
The Examiner finds that Han discloses all limitations of claim 1
including, inter alia, a collimating light source assembly (light emitter 606,
lens 603), a first photodetector (light sensor 604), and a first optical light
field redirector (window 601). Non-Final Act. 4–5 (citing Han, Fig. 6E).
The Examiner further finds that Figure 6E of Han
shows the function of the window 601 as bending the light
more towards the one or more first photodetectors than the
angular direction exiting the collimation as can be seen by the
angle of the arrows showing the path of the light. This is
further evidenced by the fact that windows are known to have
refractive and bending properties.
Id. at 13–14 (emphasis added).
Appellant contends that Han does not disclose all limitations of claim
1. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts that “Han’s window 601 does not have

3 The rejection of claims 17–19 under this ground of rejection has been
withdrawn. Ans. 13; Non-Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

4
the light redirection characteristics of the recited first optical light field
redirector of claim 1.” Id. at 10. Appellant states, “light travelling through a
typical window[] does not experience bending due to refraction with respect
to the angle of incidence that the light has upon entering the window and the
angle of incidence that the light has upon exiting the window.” Id. at 11.
Appellant submits that, for a typical window, “[t]here would thus be no
angular change in the direction of the light ray when looking at the direction
of the light immediately prior to entering the window as compared to the
direction of that light immediately after exiting the window.” Id.; see also
id. at 12 (figure depicting “Typical Refraction Behavior for a Window”).
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in “mak[ing] a
quantitative angular dimensional determination based on what the Examiner
asserts is shown in [Han’s] Figure 6E, which is an unscaled patent drawing.”
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that “Han does not provide any guidance
in the specification as to the nature of the angles of the light entering and
exiting the window 601,” and thus, “the Examiner’s reliance on the apparent
angles in Figure 6E as demonstrating a particular quantitative angular
relationship is improper.” Id. at 13 (citing Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v.
Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Appellant contends that, in fact, Han’s Figure 6E shows precisely the
opposite of what the Examiner states it shows. Appeal Br. 13. In support,
Appellant provides a first annotated version of Han’s Figure 6E (“first
annotated Fig. 6E”) reproduced below. Id. at 14.
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

5

The above figure is Appellant’s first annotated version of Figure 6E of
Han. In this figure, arrow A is the direction of a light beam prior to entering
window 601, arrow B is the direction of the light beam within window 601,
arrow C is the direction of the light beam after exiting window 601, and
arrow D is an added duplicate of arrow C repositioned to share a common
origin with arrow A. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant submits that it is clear arrow
A is bent more towards light sensor 604 than arrows D/C are, and thus, it is
clear that arrows D/C are bent less towards light sensor 604 than either
arrow A or arrow B, which is opposite to what the Examiner alleges Figure
6E shows. Id. Appellant also contends that Han is silent about whether
window 601 would do what the Examiner suggests. Id. at 15.
In response, the Examiner maintains that Han’s window 601 meets the
limitations of the recited first optical light field redirector, stating Han’s
“Figure 6E clearly shows the light exiting lens (603) enters the window
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

6
(601) and exits at an angle further toward the photodetector (light sensor
604).” Ans. 14.
We agree with Appellant that Han’s Figure 6E cannot be relied on as
disclosing a particular value of any depicted angle unless there is also
sufficient guidance in Han’s specification for such value. See Hockerson-
Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956. Here, the Examiner does not identify such
guidance in Han. However, we understand that the Examiner is not relying
on Figure 6E to show a particular value of any angle, but rather, only to
show that one depicted angle is relatively greater than another depicted
angle. See Ans. 14 (“demonstrating the light angling further toward the
photodetector, the drawing does not have to be disclosed as being to scale”).
Notwithstanding that Han’s drawings may not be drawn to scale, this does
not mean “things [Han’s] patent drawings show clearly are to be
disregarded.” See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).
However, we disagree with the Examiner that Han’s Figure 6E
“clearly shows” light exiting lens 603 enters window 601 and exits window
601 at an angle further toward light sensor 604. Ans. 14. Claim 1 requires
that
the redirected . . . light has, after exiting the first optical light
field redirector . . . , a second angular distribution with a second
angular centroid defining a second angular direction having a
directional component extending towards the one or more first
photodetectors to a greater extent than a corresponding
directional component of the first angular direction.
Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). In first annotated Figure
6E, the light entering window 601 is represented by arrow A and the light
“after exiting” window 601 is represented by arrow C. Even if Figure 6E
does not show clearly that arrow C is bent less towards the light sensor than
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

7
arrow A, we agree with Appellant that this figure does not show clearly that
light, after exiting lens 603, is bent more towards light sensor 604 than arrow
A, as claim 1 requires.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant provides a second annotated version of
Han’s Figure 6E (“second annotated Fig. 6E”), which is reproduced below.
Reply Br. 5.

The above figure is Appellant’s second annotated version of Figure
6E of Han. Appellant explains that this figure adds to Han’s Figure 6E two
dotted arrows drawn parallel to one another, that is, at the same angle.
Appeal Br. 5. The left dotted arrow is overlaid on top of the arrow in lens
603, which is assumed to represent the angle at which the light represented
by the arrow in Figure 6E enters window 601; and the right dotted arrow is
shifted rightward so that it shares a common origin with the arrow in Figure
6E that represents light exiting window 601. Id. As for this figure,
Appellant submits:
[i]n order for the arrow that exits the window 601 to represent
light that “exits [the window 601] at an angle further toward the
photodetector (light sensor 604) [than the angle that the light
had when entering the window 601],” as asserted by the
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

8
Examiner, the arrow would need to pass through the grey-
shaded region to the right of the dotted arrow on the right.
Id. at 5–6. But instead, Appellant contends, “the arrow that exits the
window 601 is clearly and indisputably to the left of the dotted arrow on the
right.” Id. at 6.
We agree with Appellant that second annotated Figure 6E also refutes
the Examiner’s position that Han’s Figure 6E shows clearly that light, after
exiting lens 603, is bent more towards light sensor 604 than light entering
lens 603.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–4, 6–
12, 15, 16, 26, and 27 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Han.

Rejection 2: Obviousness over Han and Hyde
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and recites:
wherein the collimating light source assembly includes:
a light source; and
a diffractive grating optic interposed between the light
source and the first optical light field redirector, wherein the
diffractive grating optic is configured to partially or wholly
collimate light from the light source and direct the collimated
light towards the first optical light field redirector.
Appeal Br. 35 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
For claim 13, the Examiner relies on Hyde as teaching “a Fresnel lens,
a diffraction grating, or any other lens combined with grating, etc.” Non-
Final Act. 11 (citing Hyde ¶ 34).
Appellant points out that Hyde is not cited to cure the deficiencies of
Han in regard to claim 1. Appeal Br. 24. Hence, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over Han and Hyde for the same
reasons as for claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

9
Rejection 3: Obviousness over Han
Claim 20 recites an apparatus comprising, in part, “a plurality of
optical reflectors, wherein: each optical reflector has a corresponding light
source, and the one or more optical reflectors are configured to reflect light
from the corresponding light sources to generate the partially or wholly
collimated light having the first angular distribution.” Appeal Br. 37–38
(Claims App.).
For claim 20, the Examiner finds that Han discloses “a plurality of
optical reflectors,” as claimed, based on the same findings and reasoning as
set forth in rejecting claim 12. Ans. 20–21. For claim 12, the Examiner
finds that Han discloses one or more light sources 606 and one or more
optical reflectors. Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Han, Fig. 6E, ¶¶ 50, 64).
Additionally for claim 12, the Examiner finds that Han discloses that lens
603 can be any type of lens to direct the light closer to the light sensor. Ans.
15–16 (citing Han ¶ 50). The Examiner submits that Han also discloses
embodiments that use a diffusing agent having increased reflectivity for the
wavelength or color of emitted light from the light emitter, and that the
diffusing agent can be surrounding, touching and/or covering one or more
components of the light emitter. Id. at 16 (citing Han ¶¶ 65, 66). Based on
this disclosure, the Examiner submits that Han discloses “one or more
optical reflectors,” as claimed.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant refers to its explanation for the rejection
of claim 12 as also pertaining to the rejection of claim 20. Reply Br. 18.
Appellant contends that “Figure 6E of Han does not disclose a collimating
light source assembly that includes ‘a plurality of light sources . . . and a
plurality of optical reflectors,’” as found by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 28;
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

10
see Non-Final Act. 11. Rather, Appellant contends, Figure 6E discloses an
apparatus with a single light source, and there are no optical reflectors in the
“collimating light source assembly,” that is, light emitter 606 and lens 603.
Appeal Br. 28.
Appellant contends that “the term ‘reflector’ is typically understood to
refer to a discrete structure, e.g., usually comprised of one or more reflective
surfaces, that reflects waves of some sort.” Reply Br. 10. Appellant submits
“optical reflectors,” as claimed, “would be optical reflectors such as the
parabolic mirrors” discussed in paragraph 92 of the Specification and shown
in Figures 8 and 9. Id.
Regarding Han’s disclosed diffusing agent, Appellant states, “[t]he
term ‘diffusing’ is commonly understood to mean ‘to cause to spread or
scatter widely or thinly’; it is functionally the opposite of ‘collimate,’ which
generally means ‘to bring more into line’ or ‘make more parallel.’” Reply
Br. 10–11.
Han discloses that, “[i]n some examples, diffusing agent 719 can be a
resin or epoxy that encapsulates the dies or components and/or wire bonds.”
See Han ¶ 65 (emphasis added). Figure 7F of Han shows diffusing agent
719, which appears to encapsulate light emitter 706. Han further discloses:
Diffusing agent 719 can be used to adjust the angle of the light
emitted from light emitter 706. . . . For example, the angle of
light emitted from a light emitter without a diffusing agent can
be 5° wider than the angle of light emitter from light emitter
706 encapsulated by diffusing agent 719. By narrowing the
beam of light emitted, more light can be collected by the lens
and/or window resulting in a larger amount of detected light by
the light sensor.
See Han ¶ 65 (emphasis added). Han explains, “[i]n some examples,
diffusing agent 719 can have an increased reflectivity for the wavelength or
Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

11
color of emitted light from light emitter 706.” See id. ¶ 66 (emphasis
added).
Although Han describes the “reflectivity” of diffusing agent 719, it is
not clear how this description alone establishes that the diffusing agent 719
is “an optical reflector,” as claimed. Moreover, claim 20 requires a plurality
of optical reflectors, each corresponding to a respective light source. The
Examiner does not explain persuasively how the embodiment shown in
Figure 6E of Han, which the Examiner relies on in rejecting claim 20, would
meet this requirement.
We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown with
sufficient evidence that the diffusing agent disclosed by Han is “configured”
“to generate partially or wholly collimated light,” as required by claim 20.
Reply Br. 11. As shown in Figure 7F of Han, light exiting from diffusing
agent 719 appears to be widely dispersed, as opposed to being more parallel.
This exiting light has a distribution consistent with Appellant’s position that
“[t]he term ‘diffusing’ is commonly understood to mean ‘to cause to spread
or scatter widely or thinly.’” Reply Br. 10–11. In contrast, Appellant
correctly submits that “collimate” generally means functionally the opposite
of “diffusing.” Id.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s position
regarding the claimed “plurality of optical reflectors” is not supported by
Han. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20, and claims 21, 24,
and 25 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Han.

Appeal 2020-003798
Application 15/370,303

12
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–12,
15, 16, 26,
27
102(a)(2) Han 1–4, 6–
12, 15,
16, 26, 27
13 103 Han, Hyde 13
20, 21, 24,
25
103 Han 20, 21,
24, 25
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–
13, 15,
16, 20,
21, 24–27

REVERSED