Ex Parte Govari

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 23, 2010

10302112 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ASSAF GOVARI
____________

Appeal 2009-009603
Application 10/302,112
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and KEN B. BARRETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009603
Application 10/302,112

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Assaf Govari (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-30, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is related to non-contact tracking of
objects using a magnetic field. Spec. 1:3-4. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. Position-sensing apparatus, comprising:
a set of radiators, which are adapted to be placed at
respective positions in a vicinity of a body of a subject and to
generate electromagnetic energy fields;
a position sensor, which is adapted to placed in the body
of the subject and to generate sensor signals responsive to the
energy fields;
one or more reference elements, which are adapted to be placed
at fixed respective positions in a vicinity of the sensor and to generate
reference signals responsive to the energy fields; and
a control unit, which is adapted to:
determine and store in memory, for each of the reference
elements, respective undistorted reference parameters as
undistorted magnetic field values, responsive to the positions of
the reference elements,
receive the sensor signals and the reference signals,
calculate a reference element error for each reference
element, responsive to an interaction of a metal article with the
energy fields, responsive to the stored undistorted magnetic
field values of the reference element, and responsive to the
reference signal generated by the reference element, and
calculate a position of the sensor, responsive to the sensor
Appeal 2009-009603
Application 10/302,112

3
signals and the reference element errors.
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Rejection of claims 1, 4-13, 16, and 19-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Acker (US 5,729,129, issued March 17,
1998) and Ashe (US 6,172,499 B1, issued January 9, 2001).
2. Rejection of claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Acker, Ashe, and Ferre (US 5,967,980, issued
October 19, 1999).
CONTENTION AND ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-13,
16, and 19-28 over Acker and Ashe because neither reference discloses
determining and storing in memory, for each of the reference elements,
respective undistorted reference parameters as undistorted magnetic field
values, responsive to the fixed positions of the reference elements. Br. 5-6,
8.
The issue before us is whether the proposed combination would have
led one having ordinary skill in the art to an apparatus or method which
determines and stores in memory, for each of the reference elements,
respective undistorted reference parameters as undistorted magnetic field
values, responsive to the positions of the reference elements.
Appeal 2009-009603
Application 10/302,112

4
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to a position-sensing apparatus that
includes one or more reference elements and a control unit. Claim 1 calls
for the one or more reference elements to have fixed respective positions.
Claim 1 calls for the control unit to be adapted to determine and store in
memory, for each of the reference elements, respective undistorted reference
parameters as undistorted magnetic field values, responsive to the positions
of the reference elements. Independent claim 16 is directed to a method for
sensing a position of a sensor that includes the step of “determining and
storing, for reference positions fixed in a vicinity of the sensor, respective
undistorted reference parameters as undistorted magnetic field values.”
Appellant’s Specification describes that the plurality of fixed
reference elements 22 have absolute positions that are known. Spec. 16:25-
26; fig. 1. Appellant’s Specification further describes that the “undistorted
magnetic field values” for the reference elements are calculated by two
possible methods, with both methods using the known absolute position of
the reference elements 22. Spec. 16:31-17:6.
We interpret claim 1 to call for the control unit to be adapted to
determine and store in memory undistorted magnetic field values for each of
the reference elements that are calculated using the known positions of the
one or more reference elements. We interpret claim 16 to call for the step of
determining and storing in memory undistorted magnetic field values for
each of the plurality of reference positions using the known position of the
reference positions.
Appeal 2009-009603
Application 10/302,112

5
The Examiner found that Acker does not disclose the control unit of
claim 1 and does not disclose determining, for each of the reference
elements, respective undistorted reference parameters, responsive to the
positions of the reference elements, as called for in claim 16. Ans. 3.
Further, the Examiner makes only a generalized finding that Ashe discloses
removing the distortion caused by the presence of metal within the magnetic
field of detection to improve the accuracy of position detection of an
element. Ans. 4, 6. This generalized finding is not a finding that Ashe
discloses the control unit of claim 1 adapted to determine and store in
memory undistorted magnetic field values for each of the reference elements
calculated using the known position of the one or more reference elements
or that Ashe discloses the determining and storing step of claim 16. Hence,
the Examiner’s rejection is insufficient in that it makes no finding regarding
these limitations. Additionally, we find no such disclosure in Ashe.
Ashe discloses that it is known in the art that the presence of
conductive materials in an electromagnetic field generates eddy current
fields which distort the received magnetic field waveform. Ashe, col. 1,
ll. 31-35.
Ashe discloses a measurement system that uses magnetic fields to
measure the position of receiving antennas relative to transmitting antennas
using magnetic fields and corrects for distortion caused by eddy current.
Ashe, col. 1, ll. 6-8; col. 4, ll. 21-23, 66-67. Ashe discloses that the system
10 includes a transmitter 12, a receiver 13, and a computer 15. Ashe, col. 4,
ll. 66-67; col. 5, ll. 7, 13, 22; fig. 1. Transmitter 12 generates a multiplicity
Appeal 2009-009603
Application 10/302,112

6
of AC magnetic fields which are picked up by receiver 13, which is mounted
on points of interest on the object to be tracked. Ashe, col. 5, ll. 6-14. The
output of receiver 13 goes into the signal processing electronics 14 and then
to computer 15 for further processing. Ashe, col. 5, ll. 18-22; see also Br. 7-
8. Computer 15 removes the effects of eddy current distortion from the
received signal and computes position. Ashe, col. 5, ll. 22-26.
Ashe makes no disclosure that the reference elements (e.g., receiver
13) have known positions. Ashe, passim. Nor does Ashe disclose
calculation of undistorted magnetic field values for each of the reference
elements using the known position of the one or more reference elements as
called for in independent claim 1. Id.
Thus, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16.
Claims 4-13 depend from claim 1, and claims 19-28 depend from
independent claim 16. The rejection of these dependent claims suffers from
the same shortcoming as that of independent claims 1 and 16.
Claims 2 and 3 depend from independent claim 1. Claims 17 and 18
depend from independent claim 16. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 17,
and 18 over the same combination of Acker and Ashe used for the rejection
of independent claims 1 and 16, with the further modification taught by
Ferre that the reference elements may be placed outside the body. Ans. 4-5.
This modification does not correct the shortcomings identified in our
analysis of claims 1 and 16, supra. More specifically, the Examiner found
that Ferre discloses locating the reference elements outside of the body, and
did not find that Ferre discloses that the reference elements have a known
Appeal 2009-009603
Application 10/302,112

7
position, or that the undistorted magnetic field values for each of the
reference elements is calculated using the known position of the one or more
reference elements.
Consequently, the rejection of claims 2 and 3 suffers from the same
shortcoming as that of independent claim 1, and the rejection of claims 17
and 18 suffers from the same shortcoming as that of independent claim 16.
CONCLUSION
The proposed combination would not have led one having ordinary
skill in the art to an apparatus or method which determines and stores in
memory, for each of the reference elements, respective undistorted reference
parameters as undistorted magnetic field values, responsive to the positions
of the reference elements.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30.

REVERSED

nlk

PHILIP S. JOHNSON
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
ONE JOHNSON & JOHNSON PLAZA
NEW BRUNSWICK NJ 08933-7003