Ex Parte Cortenraad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2016

11575317 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016)

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.
11/575,317 03/15/2007 Hubertus Maria Rene Cortenraad 2004P02051WOUS 6361
24737 7590 12/08/2016
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue LEE, WEI
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 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 HUBERTUS MARIA RENE CORTENRAAD and
ROGIER WINTERS
Appeal 2015-000279
Application 11/575,3171
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed “invention relates to a game board comprising a
board surface, the game board comprising means for detecting a pawn which
is positioned on the game board.” (Spec. 1.)
1 According to Appellants the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-000279
Application 11/575,317
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. It recites (emphasis
added):
1. A game board comprising a board surface and a scanning
display, the scanning display comprising:
display means for displaying a game board layout on the
board surface, and
detection means for scanning a code surface of a pawn for
detecting a pawn code when the code surface of the pawn is
directed towards the board surface and for detecting where on the
game board layout the pawn is positioned,
wherein the detection means, while detecting the pawn
code, distinguishes a first scenario in which the pawn is held
above the board surface from a second scenario in which the
pawn is in contact with the board surface, and
wherein the detection means detects an orientation of the
pawn relative to the game board when the code surface is
sufficiently close to and directed towards the board surface and
provides a warning signal when the orientation of the pawn is
inappropriate.
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Peterson (US 6,761,634 Bl, iss. July 13, 2004), Shiratsuki (US 5,313,055,
iss. May 17, 1994), and Winter (US 2005/0258252 Al, pub. Nov. 24, 2005).
Claims 2 and 9—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Peterson, Shiratsuki, Winter, and Schwab (US 5,013,047, iss. May 7, 1991).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that “it is undisputed that Peterson and Shiratsuki do
not teach, disclose or suggest distinguishing ‘the pawn is held above the
board surface from ... the pawn is in contact with the board surface.’”
2
Appeal 2015-000279
Application 11/575,317
(Appeal Br. 8; see also Final Action 3 4.) Appellants further argue that the
Examiner erred in finding that Winter discloses “distinguishing ‘a first
scenario in which the pawn is held above the board surface from a second
scenario in which the pawn is in contact with the board surface.’” (Appeal
Br. 8-9.)
The Examiner finds that Winter teaches:
wherein the detection means, while detecting barcode/pawn
code, distinguishes a first scenario (i.e. a scenario wherein the
barcode is too far out of range (range related to a surface)) in
which an object (i.e. the pawn/the pawn code/barcode of the
pawn) is held above a surface (i.e. the board surface) from a
second scenario (i.e. a scenario wherein the barcode/pawn code
is too close in range (range related to a surface)) with a surface)
in which an object (i.e. the pawn/the pawn code/barcode of the
pawn) is in contact with a surface (i.e. the board surface) flflf 43
and 20 and Fig 9B).
(Final Action 4.)
Winter discloses scanning a barcode with a laser beam and that the
amplitude of the detected reflected laser beam is indicative of the
position of the data collection device 10 relative to the barcode
12. For example, if the data collection device 10 is aimed
centrally to the barcode 12 but is too close in range, then the
intensity of light reflected from the barcode 12 will be relatively
low with respect to the left- and right-hand portions of the
barcode 12 as compared to light reflected from its central portion,
as the laser 44 scans the barcode 12 from left to right. If the data
collection device is aimed centrally to the barcode 12 but is too
far out of range, then the intensity of the reflected light will
generally be low (e.g., below some acceptable threshold level or
level detectable by the photo detector 42) across the entire
barcode 12. If the data collection device is optimally positioned
(both orientation and distance), then the intensity of the reflected
light will generally be more consistent across the barcode 12.
3
Appeal 2015-000279
Application 11/575,317
(Winter 143.) In other words, Winter discloses detecting if the position of
the data collection device relative to the barcode is: 1) too close, 2) too far,
or 3) optimally positioned. (See id.)
Claim 1 recites distinguishing “a first scenario in which the pawn is
held above the board surface from a second scenario in which the pawn is in
contact with the board surface.” We agree with the Examiner that Winter
discloses detecting whether the barcode (on the pawn) is out of range or too
close. (Final Action 4.) But it is unclear why Winter’s disclosure of
detecting that the barcode is too close to the data collection device teaches
that the barcode/pawn is in contact with the board surface, as found by the
Examiner. (See id.) Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the cited portions of Winter disclose detecting when the “pawn
is in contact with the board surface,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
For the same reason, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 3—8.
With regard to dependent claims 2 and 9—11, the Examiner does not
rely on the additional reference, Schwab, to teach or suggest the above noted
“contact” limitation. Therefore, for the reason discussed above, we are
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2 and 9—11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
4