Ex Parte Hong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 201612247726 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/247,726 10/08/2008 Hyun-Su HONG 678-3594 8533 66547 7590 08/17/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER NAJARIAN, LENA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/17/2016 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 HYUN-SU HONE, JIN-WON KIM, JI-HEON OH, and JAE-MYEON LEE ____________ Appeal 2013-011014 Application 12/247,7261 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2013-011014 Application 12/247,726 2 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. An apparatus for measuring a velocity of a moving object in a navigation system, comprising: a sensor part including an acceleration sensor for measuring acceleration of the moving object and outputting a corresponding acceleration measurement value, and an altimeter for measuring an altitude of the moving object and outputting a corresponding altitude measurement value; and a calculation part for calculating the velocity of the moving object by using the acceleration measurement value output from the acceleration sensor and the altitude measurement value output from the altimeter, wherein the calculation part comprises: an inclination angle sign estimation unit for determining a sign of an inclination angle of an inclined surface on which the moving object travels; a gravity component calculation unit for calculating a gravity component included in the acceleration measurement value output from the acceleration sensor; and a velocity calculation unit for calculating a pure movement acceleration of the moving object by removing the gravity component from the acceleration measurement value, and calculating the velocity of the moving object by using the calculated pure movement acceleration, wherein the altimeter measures the altitude of the moving object for a predetermined time period, and outputs the altitude measurement value, wherein the inclination angle sign estimation unit for determining the sign of the inclination angle of the inclined surface by using the altitude measurement value output for the predetermined time period. Appeal 2013-011014 Application 12/247,726 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Appellants’ Background of the Invention (Spec. 1–3, Fig. 1) (“ABI”) and Lin (US 2002/0069019 Al, pub. June 6, 2002). II. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over ABI, Lin, and Takaoka (US 2008/0071475 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2008). FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS The Appellants argue (Appeal Br. 6) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because neither the ABI nor Lin discloses or suggests the claimed “inclination angle sign estimation unit.” Claim 1 recites the following features of the “inclination angle sign estimation unit”: “an inclination angle sign estimation unit for determining a sign of an inclination angle of an inclined surface on which the moving object travels”; and “the inclination angle sign estimation unit for determining the sign of the inclination angle of the inclined surface by using the altitude measurement value output for the predetermined time period.” Appeal Br. 8, Claims App. The Examiner finds that the combination of the ABI and Lin teaches the use of an altimeter to measure the road inclination angle, relying on Lin’s disclosure of an altimeter. Answer 9 (citing ABI (Spec. 3, ll. 1–26; 2, ll. 12–27, Fig. 1), Lin ¶¶ 135–137). According to the Examiner, it would Appeal 2013-011014 Application 12/247,726 4 have been obvious to use an altimeter in combination with the ABI, in order to achieve a more accurate determination of the position of an object. Id. (citing Lin ¶¶ 135–137). In response, the Appellants contend that neither the ABI nor Lin discloses or suggests the claimed “inclination angle sign estimation unit.” Reply Br. 3. The Appellants argue that Lin fails to disclose the measurement of altitude for the claimed “predetermined time period” and that Lin also fails to disclose or suggest “determining the sign of the inclination angle” or performing calculations that use “the sign of the inclination angle,” as recited in claim 1. Id. The Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Although Lin (which concerns an aircraft navigation and proximity warning system) discloses an altimeter (Lin ¶¶ 135–136), there is no disclosure or suggestion in the cited portion of Lin about using the altimeter to determine the sign of any angle, let alone the claimed “inclination angle.” Further, the ABI and Lin do not teach or suggest how an altitude measurement might be utilized with the ABI, which relies upon a gyroscope to measure a road inclination angle (Spec. 2, ll. 8–9, 22–23) and does not employ an altimeter for any purpose. Nor does the Examiner explain how such a combination might be accomplished. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 4 and 5 dependent thereon, is not sustained. The foregoing analysis also applies to independent claim 6. See Final Action 4–6; Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, the rejection of claim 6, as well as claims 9 and 10 dependent thereon, is also not sustained. Appeal 2013-011014 Application 12/247,726 5 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 10. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation