Ex Parte Fitzli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2015

12043236 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2015)

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.
12/043,236 03/06/2008 Peter Andreas Maspoli Fitzli IMD289 4920
34300 7590 04/14/2015
PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851)
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1001 WEST FOURTH STREET
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
EXAMINER
SPAR, ILANA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER ANDREAS MASPOLI FITZLI, J. MICHAEL BROWN,
ROBERT F. COHEN, ROBERT FALK, and TIANNING XU
____________

Appeal 2013-002676
Application 12/043,236
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–25. App. Br. 1. Claim 3 is cancelled. App.
Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2013-002676
Application 12/043,236

2
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to “determining the location and
orientation of an object that is placed on a surface.” Spec. ¶ 6. Independent
claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with emphasis added to the
disputed element:
1. A system for determining the location and
orientation of an object, the system comprising:
an optical device physically supported by the
object at a fixed position with respect to a reference point
of the object;
wherein the object is configured to rest on a
surface, the surface comprising a reference pattern the
reference pattern having plurality of markings, the
plurality markings including encoded information
capable of being used to determine a location and
orientation of the object; and
wherein the optical device is configured to be
positioned on the object at a predetermined height
above the reference pattern and is configured to have
a predetermined viewing angle, the predetermined
height and predetermined viewing angle configured to
allow the optical device to capture an image of a portion
of the reference pattern, the optical device further
configured to generate and transmit an image signal
comprising image data associated with the image; and
a processing device in communication with the
optical device, the processing device configured to
receive the image signal from the optical device and to
calculate a location and orientation of the reference point
based at least in part on the image of the portion of the
reference pattern.

Appeal 2013-002676
Application 12/043,236

3
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 12–20, and 22–24 under 35
U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Lazzouni (US 5,661,506; Aug. 26, 1997).
Ans. 3–6.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Lazzouni. Ans. 7.
The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Lazzouni and Wiebe (WO 01/71643 A1; Sept. 27, 2001). Ans. 7.
The Examiner rejects claims 8–11, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Lazzouni and Lacey (WO 03/096307 A1; Nov. 20,
2003). Ans. 7–8.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contest the Examiner’s reliance on Lazzouni as teaching an
optical device “positioned” at a “predetermined height” above a surface with
a “predetermined viewing angle” to the surface as independent claims 1, 15,
and 22 all require. App. Br. 7–9. We agree with Appellants that Lazzouni
fails to disclose the limitations in question. Lazzouni is directed to a camera,
mounted on a pen, to record the pen’s markings. Lazzouni Abstract. In
rejecting claims 1, 15, and 22, the Examiner relies on the following passage
from Lazzouni as teaching the predetermined height and viewing angle
elements:
When the imaging system is tilted with respect to the normal to
the paper, the distance between front end of the optics and the
object changes, which in turn defocuses the image. This
requires a minimum depth of field of 5.000 mm corresponding
to a 45 degree tilt with respect to the normal to the paper and a
distance between the pen tip and the center of optics equal to 5
mm.
Appeal 2013-002676
Application 12/043,236

4
Ans. 10 (quoting Lazzouni 6:62–7:2). We agree with Appellants that instead
of disclosing an imaging system at a predetermined height and viewing
angle, the cited passage teaches that Lazzouni’s optical device requires a
minimum 5 mm depth of field to accommodate changes in height and
viewing angle as the user tilts the pen and attached imaging system during
use. See App. Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 2. The 5 mm depth of field and 45 degree
tilt disclosed in Lazzouni are predetermined height and angle ranges in
which Lazzouni’s optical device is designed to function. They are not,
however, predetermined height and angle positions for the optical device as
independent claims 1, 15, and 22 require. We therefore agree with
Appellants that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 15,
and 22. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 15, and 22, or claims 2, 4–14, 16–21, and 23–25
which depend from claims 1, 15, and 22.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–25.

REVERSED

ACP