Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201311588221 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/588,221 10/27/2006 Yong Wan Kim 123056-06133589 2887 22429 7590 09/23/2013 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER CRAWLEY, KEITH L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2013 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 YONG WAN KIM, YONGSEOK JANG, and WOOKHO SON ____________ Appeal 2011-003377 Application 11/588,2211 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, of South Korea. Appeal 2011-003377 Application 11/588,221 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, and 7-14, which are all the claims remaining in the application. Claims 2 and 6 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to “allowing a user to naturally interact with a virtual environment by finely and delicately controlling a virtual hand model in a cyberspace through tracking the motions of hand in a real space.” See Spec., (¶ [0001]). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A hand interface glove using miniaturized absolute position sensors comprising: a glove unit formed in a shape of a hand to be worn on a hand; a sensor unit for sensing analog signals representing absolute positions of finger joints, which change according to motions made by the finger joints, the sensor unit comprising a plurality of miniaturized absolute position sensors which track the absolute positions of the finger joints and which are disposed at predetermined positions on the glove unit relative to the finger joints; and a data collecting unit for receiving the sensed analog signals from the sensing unit, transforming the analog signals to digital signals and outputting the digital signals, wherein each miniaturized absolute position sensor senses the absolute position of the associated finger joints by detecting a variation of a length of a fine wire that is inserted into an embedded coil, where the length of fine wire within the coil varies according to the absolute position of the associated finger joint. Appeal 2011-003377 Application 11/588,221 3 Appellants appeal the following rejections: R1. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tremblay (US 6,088,017, issued July 11, 2000), Arms (US 5,777,467, July 7, 1998), and Olenick (US 4,551,061, issued Nov. 5, 1985); R2. Claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tremblay, Arms, Olenick, and Pokrywka (US 6,844,720 B1, issued Jan. 18, 2005); and R3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tremblay, Arms, Olenick, Pokrywka, and Carmel (US 2006/0122819 A1, published June 8, 2006). Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-14 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of the cited arts, particularly Tremblay, teach and/or suggest an absolute position of finger joints, as set forth in representative claim 1? Appellants contend that “Tremblay seems to be measuring angles only, whereas the instant claims recite absolute position” (App. Br. 11) and “the sensing measurement is the absolute position of the finger joints, which Appeal 2011-003377 Application 11/588,221 4 is not simply the angle formed by the joint” (id. at 12). Appellants further contend that “the claimed and described system gives the size and shape of the hand, as well as the angles formed by the fingers” (Reply Br. 4). The Examiner found that “[t]he appellant[s’] specification para. 54 states ‘the miniaturized absolute position sensor is directly used to measure the angle of the finger joints.’ Based on appellant[s’] specification para. 52, the ‘absolute position’ of a finger joint being sensed . . . appears to be ‘simply the angle formed by the joint’” (Ans. 20). Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 essentially for the reasons indicated by the Examiner. Our interpretation of Appellants’ Specification and the disclosure of Tremblay coincide with that of the Examiner. We start by noting, a claim meaning is reasonable if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, Appellants contend that the claimed “absolute position” in the “described system gives the size and shape of the hand, as well as the angles formed by the fingers” (Reply Br. 4). We disagree with Appellants’ meaning of the claimed “absolute position.” For example, Appellants’ Specification merely discloses that “the miniaturized absolute position sensor is directly used to measure the angle of finger joints” (¶ [0054]). Appeal 2011-003377 Application 11/588,221 5 While, Appellants’ Specification also states “a hand shaped glove 10 and miniaturized absolute position sensors 20 for accurately tracking the shape of hand” (see ¶ [0051]), the example that Appellants give for doing the same only relates to absolute position of the finger joints (id.), not the actual size or shape of the hand itself. As such, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Specification, of the claimed “absolute positions of finger joints” is the measure of the angle of the finger joints. Similarly, as conceded by Appellants (App. Br. 11), Tremblay discloses “[a]n instrumented glove (1820) . . . has sensors (1807-1819) on it which measure the angles of the joints of the hand” (col. 13, ll. 26-32). As for Appellants’ arguments that Tremblay “requires more sensors” than claim 1 (see App. Br. 10) and Olenick “requires a triangulated system of measurement” (id.), we find that such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, as claim 1 does not place a limitation on the specific number of sensors being used nor does claim 1 exclude any triangulated function. Appellants also contend that “there is no ‘joint’ in Olenick” . . . “[f]urthermore, there is no angular measurement in Olenick” (App. Br. 12). Here, Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.) Appeal 2011-003377 Application 11/588,221 6 (citations omitted, emphasis added). This reasoning is applicable here as Tremblay clearly discloses joints and angular measurements, as noted supra, and Olenick discloses position sensors on a robot arm that can sense bending and lengthwise changes in arm position sensed by rods (see Abstract). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that in analyzing the obviousness of combining elements, a court need not find specific teachings, but rather may consider “the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions,” Id. at 417, and the basis for an obviousness rejection must include an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418. Here, the Examiner correctly concluded that the combination achieved the predictable result of tracking absolute positions of finger joints (see Ans. 25- 26). In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the disclosure of the cited references, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 3-5 and 7- 14 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. Appeal 2011-003377 Application 11/588,221 7 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation