Ex Parte Gu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2009

11448940 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FANGMING GU
____________

Appeal 2008-5461
Application 11/448,940
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided1: March 20, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ELENI
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, 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 2008-5461
Application 11/448,940

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-17, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for coding an event history.
According to Appellant, when information relating to a real time state of an
event is received as a series of logical “0” and “1,” it is determined whether
the state of the event is in one of two states. In response to the event being
in a first state, a data stream is appended with a first characteristic
representative of the first state, and in response to the event being in a
second different state, the data stream is appended with a second
characteristic representative of the second state. (See Spec. ¶ [0004]).
Independent claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method for coding an event history, comprising:

receiving information relating to a real time state of an event;

determining, for a defined interval of time, whether the real
time state of the event is in one of two states;

in response to the event being in a first state, appending a data
stream with a first characteristic representative of the first state, and in
response to the event being in a second different state, appending the
data stream with a second characteristic representative of the second
state;
saving the appended data stream;

repeating the determining and appending for a next sequential
defined interval of time; and
Appeal 2008-5461
Application 11/448,940

3

communicating the appended data stream for analysis.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ishii US 6,128,560 Oct. 3, 2000
Kamiyama US 2004/0095350 A1 May 20, 2004
Jung US 2004/0260435 A1 Dec. 23, 2004

Claims 1-6, 10, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Kamiyama.
Claims 7, 9, 11, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kamiyama and Ishii.
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kamiyama, Ishii, and Jung.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the
Examiner.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a). The issue specifically turns on whether
Kamiyama anticipates Appellant’s claimed invention by disclosing
appending a data stream with characteristics representative of one of the two
states after, for a defined interval of time, it is determined whether the real
time state of the event is in one of two states.

Appeal 2008-5461
Application 11/448,940

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)). See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts that the “defined interval of time” in paragraphs
[0083] and [0084] of Kamiyama may be a time interval of a finite duration,
but there is no disclosure in the reference that these intervals are to be
repeated sequentially to satisfy the “next sequential defined interval of time”
limitation (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3). Appellant further argues that the
relied on disclosure in Figure 10 of Kamiyama merely relates to an editing
screen where “an editing operation of digital signal waveforms” is
conducted (App. Br. 6), and differs from coding an event history (App. Br.
6-7).
The Examiner relies on Figure 10 of Kamiyama and its corresponding
description in paragraph [0083] and asserts that real time data is read for
each of eight channels to generate the waveforms illustrated in display area
24 (Ans. 11-12). The Examiner apparently characterizes the ON/OFF states
Appeal 2008-5461
Application 11/448,940

5
shown for each channel in Figure 10 as one of the two states corresponding
to the event, which are repeated to generate the entire waveform for each
channel (Ans. 12). Additionally, the Examiner reads the claimed “defined
interval of time” on the time period the waveform is in a “low” state (Ans.
13-14) and argues that the system of Kamiyama then appends a data stream
“with a high/‘1’ value for this next sequential defined interval to generate
the resulting waveform” (Ans. 14).
Kamiyama relates to a waveform editing program and system
(Abstract) which, as shown in Figure 2, displays waveforms and the
corresponding data in view area 24 and data view area 23 for conducting
various kinds of editing operations on the waveforms (¶¶ [0083]-[0085]).
Kamiyama further depicts in Figure 10 an example of a screen display of
digital waveforms wherein manipulating a mouse moves a cursor around the
parts of the waveforms and indicates the ON/OFF states of the waveform by
showing an ON or OFF mark in proximity of the cursor (¶¶ [0099]-[0102]).
We disagree with the Examiner’s characterization (Ans. 12) of these
waveforms displayed in the view area 24 of Kamiyama as the claimed real
time state of an event which is to be appended to indicate one of the two
states. Not only do the displayed waveforms represent no real time state of
an event, the data stream representing the two states is neither appended nor
stored. As argued by Appellant (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4), the manipulation
or editing of waveform disclosed by Kamiyama is performed on waveforms
having different sequential time intervals that are not defined for the
displayed waveform and cannot relate to a next sequential interval of time.
Kamiyama, in fact, does not disclose whether the editing program has
any control on defining the time interval by which the two states are
Appeal 2008-5461
Application 11/448,940

6
represented. In other words, the wave manipulation disclosed in Kamiyama
is not in real time and takes place after the data is taken (¶ [0085]).
Furthermore, the editing program merely stores the waveform data and does
not appear to provide any information on how the wave data was taken or
will be taken for the next set of waveforms. As such, we agree with
Appellant (Reply Br. 4) that, since the waveforms of Kamiyama are based
on an undefined interval of time with no indication as to how the wave data
was taken, Kamiyama does not meet the claimed limitation of appending a
data stream after, for a defined interval of time, it is determined whether the
real time state of the event is in one of two states.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner fails to make a
prima facie case that Kamiyama anticipates claim 1 or the other independent
claim 15 which includes similar limitations. Therefore, in view of our
analysis above, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-6, 10, 12, 13, and
15 as anticipated by Kamiyama cannot be sustained. Additionally, we do
not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 7-9, 11, 14, 16, and 17
over Kamiyama in combination with Ishii or Jung since the Examiner has
not identified any teachings in these secondary references related to
appending a data stream after, for a defined interval of time, it is determined
whether the real time state of the event is in one of two states, to overcome
the deficiencies of Kamiyama discussed above.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-17 is reversed.
Appeal 2008-5461
Application 11/448,940

7

REVERSED

babc

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LEGAL STAFF
MAIL CODE 482-C23-B21
P O BOX 300
DETROIT, MI 48265-3000