Ex Parte Bialoskorski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

13255334 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/255,334 09/08/2011 Leticia Sofia Susanna Bialoskorski
24737 7590 07/01/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2009P00287WOUS 6238
EXAMINER
YACOB, SISAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LETICIA SOFIA SUSANNA BIALOSKORSKI,
JOANNE HENRIETTE DESIREE MONIQUE WESTERINK, and
EGIDIUS LEON VANDENBROEK
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of Claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to a system for emitting light or sound
by user devices corresponding to detected motion of the user devices. Spec.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real
party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
1. Claims 1, 11, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, which is illustrative of
the invention, reads as follows:
1. An interactive system for coordinating at least one of
light and sound emitted by user devices, the system comprising:
a plurality of user devices adapted to controllably
produce at least one of light and sound emissions, at least one
of said user devices being adapted to be moved with
predetermined detectible motions corresponding with respective
predetermined ones of said emissions;
at least one motion sensor for sensing said motions of the
at least one user device; and
a control system adapted to receive inputs from said at
least one motion sensor and to control the at least one of light
and sound emitted by the plurality of user devices in
correspondence with the sensed predetermined motion of the at
least one user device.
Br. 23.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Molinaroli
Holt
US 6,265,984 B 1
US 6,626,728 B2
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
July 24, 2001
Sept. 30, 2003
Claims 1--4, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Molinaroli. Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 5-7, 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Molinaroli and Holt. Final Act. 7-12.
2
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellants
could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellants argue claims 1--4, 8, and 10 as a group, with claim 1
representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Br. 8-10. Appellants
allege error with respect to the Examiner's findings on virtually every
limitation of claim 1, arguing that Molinari (the reference relied upon by the
Examiner) fails to disclose the limitations. Id. We disagree.
Molinaroli discloses devices and methods for displaying images
and/or emitting sound, by use of LEDs and speakers that operate when
moved in a controlled motion. Molinaroli, Abstract; col. 3, 11. 40-64, col. 9,
11. 29-33; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 12. Figure 1 of Molinaroli, reproduced below,
illustrates one embodiment.
3
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
FiG. l
10
Figure 1 shows a policeman holding a traffic light baton display according to
the present invention. Molinaroli col. 2, 11. 12-14. When the baton (pre-
programmed device) 10 is moved in a controlled, back and forth manner, the
light emitting diodes (LEDs) on the baton tum on and off in a timed manner
to give the illusion of the word "STOP" displayed by the LEDs. Id. at col. 3,
11. 45--49.
Figure 2 ofMolinaroli, reproduced below, is a side elevation view of
the traffic light baton of Figure 1.
4
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
FlG. 2
Figure 2 shows, among other things, a "main" PC display board 11 with
plurality of LEDs (12) and plurality of speakers (23), and a "secondary" PC
display board 33, also including LEDs (34) and speakers. Molinaroli col. 3,
11. 47--48; col. 4, 1. 12; col. 5, 11. 27-31.
5
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
Appellants argue Molinaroli fails to disclose "user devices" (or,
"plurality of user devices") as recited repeatedly in claim 1, because
Molinaroli is directed to a single device and not multiple devices. Br. 9
(emphasis added). The Examiner, however, finds "user devices" not in the
single baton shown in Figure 1, but in Molinaroli' s disclosure of two display
boards each with multiple LEDs and speakers shown in Figure 2. Ans. 3--4
(emphasis added). As the Examiner explains, Ans. 3, nothing in the
language of claim 1 requires "user devices" be completely disconnected
from one another, such that they could not also be part of a single, larger
entity such as a display baton (and/or controlled by the same person). Id.
Although Appellants argue (Br. 14) the Specification describes
"communicating between individuals," and therefore implies Appellants'
claimed user devices must be controlled by different people, those
limitations are not recited in the claim. Moreover, Appellants' Specification
does not define, or even mention, the term "user devices. "2
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Examiner's
interpretation of "plurality of user devices" as including display boards
sharing a common physical connection or mounting. See Phillips v. AWH
2 The closest the Specification comes to defining "user devices" is in its
explanation of "elements for communicating users' emotional states by light
emission." Spec. 2. The Specification explains, "a system according to the
invention comprises: at least two functionally connected elements (1--4)
adapted by means of their mass and provision to be moved by a user, each
element comprising a light or sound emitting device (5-8)." Id. This
passage does not help Appellants. It is consistent with the Examiner's
finding of user devices in Molinaroli, i.e., the functionally connected display
boards, each including LEDs, and each moved by a user when the user
moves the baton.
6
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims must be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification). We,
therefore, find no error in the Examiner's finding of "user devices" in
Molinaroli' s display boards that include LEDs and speakers. 3
Moreover, even if we were persuaded by Appellants' proposed claim
construction, Appellants still do not demonstrate error in the Examiner's
finding the claimed "user devices" in Molinaroli. In assessing an
anticipation rejection, we must "take into account not only the specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826 (CCP A 1968). Given Molinaroli' s disclosure of many different
embodiments (displays) of the invention, and multiple illustrations of
different displays, one skilled in the art reasonably would infer an
embodiment may be utilized alone or with other disclosed embodiments
(i.e., Molinaroli illustrating multiple embodiments of a user device discloses
to one of ordinary skill, "user devices"). See, e.g., Molinaroli Figs. 1, 4, 10,
12, 14, and 26. The claim does not require one motion sensor (on one user
device) to control the light or sound emissions of multiple user devices, as
Appellants imply. Br. 9-10. Thus, even if we were to interpret "user
device" as the entire object shown in Molinaroli Figure 1 (baton), Figure 12
(wheel), and other figures, rather than the display boards in Figure 2, the
3 We also note Figure 12 of Molinaroli illustrates "user devices" separated
even more perceptibly than in Figure 2. Figure 12 shows a bicycle, with
each wheel on the bicycle displaying a different word spread across the
spokes as the wheel turns, according to the invention disclosed in
Molinaroli. See Final Act. 4 (citing Molinaroli Figs. 1-28); Molinaroli col.
11, 1. 59---col. 12, 1. 24.
7
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
Examiner did not err in finding Molinaroli discloses "user devices" as
recited in the claim.
Appellants' remaining arguments also do not persuade us of error.
Appellants contend the user device( s) in Molinaroli are not "adapted to be
moved with predetermined detectible motions corresponding with"
predetermined light or sound emissions, as the claim requires. Br. 9. We,
like the Examiner, however, find this element in Molinaroli's description of
the baton (with its corresponding display boards) shown in Figure 1 (and
other figures) being waved in a "back and forth motion" and this motion
"corresponds with" particular light emissions to give the illusion of a word
or image. Ans. 4--5 (citing Molinaroli col. 1, 11. 55-58, col. 2, 11. 1--4); see
also Final Act. 3--4. The fact that those motions are "limited in respect of
both direction and rate of speed," as Appellants argue (Br. 9), is irrelevant,
because Appellants' claim does not specify a particular direction or speed.
And, while Appellants argue (Br. 9) Molinaroli's light emissions also are
impacted by a user's choice of pushbutton determining the text or image to
display, this additional feature does not negate the fact that the motions of
the device also are "corresponding with" predetermined light emissions, as
claimed.
Similarly, we agree with the Examiner's findings on Appellants' last
two claim limitations, "at least one motion sensor" and a control system "to
control the at least one of light and sound." Ans. 8-11. Appellants'
arguments merely point out additional elements in Molinaroli irrelevant to
the claim, such as the manner in which the lights tum on and off, or elements
8
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
allegedly lacking from Molinaroli that are not required in the claim, such as
"sound emissions." Br. 9-10. 4
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Molinaroli, as well as
claims 2--4, 8, and 10, not argued separately. We also sustain the rejection
of claims 11, 14 and 15 (argued as a group), which recite limitations
commensurate in scope to claim 1, and for which Appellants make the same
arguments we found unpersuasive, above. Br. 11.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue all claims (claims 5-7, 9, 12, and 13) as a group,
with claim 5 representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Claim 5
depends from claim 1 and requires "an information storage unit for storing
inputs from said at least one motion sensor." Br. 23. Appellants contend the
Examiner erred in finding Holt teaches the claimed information storage unit,
because the storage unit in Holt (a "time buffer") is used for the "purpose of
comparing motion history of the wand with a library of target motion
sequences." Br. 20.
Appellants' argument is inapposite to the claim limitation at issue.
Regardless of any other purposes of the Holt device, it indisputably (Br. 20)
includes sensors to detect the motion of a "wand moved by a user," and
includes a "time buffer" to record that motion. Ans. 21-23; Holt col. 3, 1.
65, col. 4, 1. 1 (sensor to interpret motion), col. 4 11. 55---62 ("motion history
4 Appellants' arguments also may be read to imply further limitations in the
phrase "corresponding with" (or "in correspondence with"), suggesting
something more than a relationship or matching. Br. 9-10. Appellants'
implication (if intended), however, lacks sufficient explanation and is not
supported in the record before us.
9
Appeal2015-000900
Application 13/255,334
buffer"). Appellants briefly argue the Examiner lacked rationale to combine
Holt with Molinaroli, because such modification would render Molinaroli' s
"display device unsuitable for its intended purpose." Br. 20. Appellants do
not explain, however, why adding a memory to Molinaroli would have any
negative effect on the display. To the contrary, as the Examiner explains,
Molinaroli and Holt both are directed to light display corresponding with
motion, and the advantage of combining Holt's memory with Molinaroli
would be understood by one of ordinary skill, i.e., to enhance user
experience by saving sequences or patterns for comparing and/or displaying
certain messages, data, or information. Ans. 23.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 5-7, 9,
12, and 13 as obvious.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Molinaroli is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5-7, 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Molinaroli and Holt is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
10