Ex Parte Chin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2009

10810173 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YEE LOONG CHIN,
KEE SIANG GOH, and CHEE KEONG CHONG
_____________

Appeal 2009-002849
Application 10/810,173
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 July 31, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002849
Application 10/810,173

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates to a polaroid encoder system for
detecting movement (Abstract; Fig. 3; Spec. 6-10). The encoder uses a light
emitting device and a photodetector to detect the amplitude of illumination
passing through a movable polarizing code element (i.e., code disk) and to
determine a quadrant of the movable polarizing code element, and then
determines the angular position of the code element based on the amplitude
and quadrant information (Abstract; Figs. 9-11; Spec. 18-25).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A polaroid encoder system for detecting movement, said system
comprising:

a movable polarizing code element comprising a first concentric code,
a second concentric code and a set of quadrants, the first and second
concentric codes in contact with one another over one of the four quadrants
of said movable polarizing code element;

a detector module to detect an amplitude based on how much
illumination passes through a first portion of said movable polarizing code
element, said detector module comprising:

a first illumination detector covered with a first static polarizing
filter that is oriented in a first direction;

a second illumination detector covered with a second static
polarizing filter that is oriented in a second direction;

Appeal 2009-002849
Application 10/810,173

3
a first determination module to identify a quadrant of said movable
polarizing code element based on how much illumination passes through a
second portion of said movable polarizing code element, the first
determination module responsive to a single illumination source that emits
light that is directed at and unaltered before encountering the movable
polarizing code element and thereafter unaltered before encountering a third
illumination detector; and
a second determination module coupled to receive said amplitude and
said quadrant and configured to determine an angular position of said
movable polarizing code element using said amplitude and said quadrant.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hoffler US 4,958,072 Sep. 18, 1990
Wijntjes US 2005/0002032 A1 Jan. 6, 2005
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Wijntjes and Hoffler.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 each recite a method or apparatus for
determining the angular position of a movable polarizing code element
including an illumination source that emits light and “is directed at and
unaltered before encountering the movable polarizing code element and
thereafter unaltered before encountering a third illumination detector”
(claims 1, 9, 17). The Examiner relies on Wijntjes as disclosing the
illumination source and third illumination detector as set forth in claims 1, 9,
and 17 (Ans. 3-7, 9-11). More specifically, the Examiner relies on (i) light
source 110 of Wijntjes as teaching the recited illumination source, and (ii)
photodetector element 802A (Fig. 16A) and detector 120d (Figs. 4-7, 9) of
Appeal 2009-002849
Application 10/810,173

4
Wijntjes as teaching the third illumination detector of the claims (Ans. 3-7).
Appellants argue, inter alia, the applied reference to Wijntjes fails to
teach or suggest an illumination source that emits light and “is directed at
and unaltered before encountering the movable polarizing code element and
thereafter unaltered before encountering a third illumination detector” as set
forth in claims 1, 9, and 17 (App. Br. 19-25). More specifically, Appellants
argue (Reply Br. 4-5) that detector 120d detects light that is altered by lens
112 and not unaltered light as set forth in the noted claim limitations.
With respect to the illumination source that emits light that is
“unaltered before encountering the movable polarizing code element and
thereafter unaltered before encountering a third illumination detector” as set
forth in claims 1, 9, and 17, Wijntjes fails to teach directing unaltered light
at the movable polarizing code element 114/314/414/654C (see Figs. 4-7, 9)
because lens 112 has optical properties that will affect the light emitted from
light source 110 before it is directed to the movable polarizing code element.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 4-5) that Wijntjes transmits
altered light from the illumination source to the movable polarizing code
element, and thus, altered light to the illumination detector 120d, is
convincing. Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 21, 23, 25) that
Hoffler alters light emitted from light source 22 via couplers 23/24/28 and
demux 26 prior to reaching the code wheel 52 are also persuasive, and have
not been rebutted by the Examiner (see Ans. 9-10).
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 is not sustained
because the Examiner’s factual bases and articulated reasoning concerning
Appeal 2009-002849
Application 10/810,173

5
the teachings of Wijntjes do not support a legal conclusion of obviousness
(see In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)), and because the teachings of Hoffler do not cure
the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Wijntjes. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 2 to 8, 10 to 16, and 18
to 22, which each ultimately depend from claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively,
the Examiner relies upon Wijntjes’ illumination source 110 and illumination
detector 802A and 120d as teaching the recited illumination source that
emits and directs unaltered light at the movable polarizing code element and
unaltered light at a third illumination detector (Ans. 3-9, 11). Thus,
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 19-26) that Wijntjes fails to teach the
illumination source that emits light and is directed at and unaltered before
encountering the movable polarizing code element and thereafter unaltered
before encountering a third illumination detector as set forth in claims 2 to 8,
10 to 16, and 18 to 22 is persuasive for the same reasons as discussed supra
with regard to claims 1, 9, and 17.
Inasmuch as the lens 112 of Wijntjes alters light emitted from light
source 110, the combined teachings of the references lack an illumination
source and third illumination detector for encountering unaltered light as set
forth in all of the claims on appeal. Thus, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 to 22 is not sustained because the applied references neither teach
nor would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed
subject matter, and because the Examiner’s factual bases and articulated
Appeal 2009-002849
Application 10/810,173

6
reasoning as to the teachings of Wijntjes and Hoffler do not support a legal
conclusion of obviousness. See Fine, 837 F.2d at 1073; Kahn, 441 F.3d at
988.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

KATHY MANKE
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
4380 ZIEGLER ROAD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525