Ex Parte Krapf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

13133849 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2017)

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.
13/133,849 08/29/2011 Reiner Krapf 2178-0078 6034
10800 7590 01/17/2017
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
BLACK-CHILDRESS, RAJSHEED O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2017 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 REINER KRAPF, CHRISTOPH WIELAND,
and ULLI HOFFMAN
____________

Appeal 2016-000687
Application 13/133,849
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 3–11, and 13. App. Br. 1. Claims
2 and 12 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 The Appeal Brief identifies Robert Bosch GmbH, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 2, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed August 11, 2015, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed
Appeal 2016-000687
Application 13/133,849

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a handheld locating device. See Abstract.

Invention
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced
below
1. A locating device comprising:
a portable, handheld housing having dimensions that
define a reference variable, the housing having a two-
dimensional housing surface;
a display unit; and
a locating unit configured to detect presence of objects in
a region of an examination object located in front of the housing
surface using a measurement signal and includes a computation
unit configured to generate an item image for the item from the
measurement signal of the region located in front of the housing
surface, the item image having at least two dimensions and
depicting at least a profile of the item,
wherein the display unit is configured to display the item
image of the region located in front of the housing surface, and
wherein the computation unit is configured to determine
an orientation of the item detected in the examination object with
respect to the reference variable of the housing using the item
image generated by the computation unit.

September 29, 2014, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed June 9, 2011,
“Spec.”) for their respective details.

Appeal 2016-000687
Application 13/133,849

3
References and Rejections
Kousek, et al., US 5,296,807 Mar. 22, 1994
Kashuba, et al., US 2005/0151662 A1 July 14, 2005
Olsson, et al., US 7,009,399 B2 Mar. 7, 2006
Karr US 2007/0194925 A1 Aug. 23, 2007

The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3–11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA
second paragraph), as indefinite.3 Final Act. 2–3.
2. Claims 1, 3–7, and 11–134 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
obvious over Olsson and Kousek. Final Act. 3–9.
3. Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious
over Olsson, Kousek, and Karr. Final Act. 10.
4. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over
Olsson, Kousek, and Kashuba. Final Act. 10–11.

3 The Examiner has withdrawn this ground of rejection. Ans. 2.
4 The caption of the rejection recites “Claims 1, 3–8, and 11–12.” Final Act.
3. However, the narrative rejection does not discuss Claim 8, but further
discusses Claim 13. Id. at 9.

Appeal 2016-000687
Application 13/133,849

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1 and 3–13 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5–13.

CLAIMS 1 AND 3–13: OBVIOUSNESS OVER OLSSON AND KOUSEK
Appellants argue all claims as a group, over the Olsson-Kousek
combination, in view of the limitations of Claim 1. See Br. 12–13; Ans. 5.
Appellants contend the Olsson-Kousek combination fails to teach each
limitation of Claim 1. Br. 7.
The item image having at least two dimensions and
depicting at least a profile of the item.
Appellants initially contend the proposed combination of Olsson and
Kousek cannot teach a device which is capable of generating a two-
dimensional profile image of an examined object. Br. 9. Appellants
maintain the Olsson device is capable only of identifying the orientation of
the magnetic fields produced by an item, but is not capable of generating an
image of a detected item. Id. Appellants contend Kousek teaches a system
in which magnetic field data are collected relative to a scanned object. Id.
Appellants maintain that Kousek graphs magnetic field data, but fails to
teach generating an image of the structure producing the magnetic fields. Id.
The Examiner finds Kousek teaches a system for detecting a magnetic
object and displaying its location. Id. The Examiner finds Kousek teaches
that by integrating repetitive scans, whereby an image of the located device
may be formed and displayed. Id. at 2–3.
Appellants do not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2016-000687
Application 13/133,849

5
We find Appellants disclose “an ‘image’ should be understood as
meaning . . . a schematic reproduction of the examination object.” Spec., 3,
ll. 18–21. We find that Kousek teaches at least “a schematic reproduction”
of the examination object. See Kousek, Figures 1, 5. We further find
Kousek’s display appears to be a “profile” of the object, as claimed and as
found by the Examiner.

The region currently located in front of the housing surface.
Appellants contend that even if the Olsson-Kousek combination
teaches the claimed profile image, the combination fails to teach “a
computation unit configured to generate an item image for the item from the
measurement signal of the region currently located in front of the housing
surface.” Br. 11. Appellants contend Kousek fails to meet the “currently”
limitation. Appellants argue Kousek only forms an image after the devices
is scanned twice over the investigated region in order to form an image.
Thus, the image generated is not from the region currently in front of the
housing surface, as claimed. Id. at 12.
The Examiner finds Kousek scans the examined region two directions
in order to produce an image. Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds the
claimed “region currently located in front of the housing,” can be interpreted
to be a more general and/or larger region than Appellant contends. Id.
Thus, whenever Kousek’s device is anywhere within the scanned region,
said region is “currently located in front of the housing,” as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds Kousek’s Figure 1 illustrates such a condition. Ans. 4.
Appellants contend, even given the Examiner’s unreasonably broad
interpretation of the claims, Kousek does not arrive at the limitation of
generating “an item image for the item from the measurement signal of the
Appeal 2016-000687
Application 13/133,849

6
region currently located in front of the housing surface.” Br. 11. Appellants
argue Kousek must be scanned over the entire area twice to gather the data
need to generate an image of the scanned area. Therefore, any image that is
generated at this time is not an image of the region currently located in front
of the housing surface but rather is an image of the region that was located in
front of the housing at some time in the past. Id. at 12.
We agree with Appellants. Kousek teaches taking multiple scans, at
right angles to each other, to generate a panoramic image. Examiner finds
Kousek’s Figure 1 illustrates an image of the claimed region. Ans. 4.
However, we find Kousek teaches displaying an image in size at least nine
times that of the housing surface. Kousek teaches a square area of a surface
is to be scanned where the length of an edge of the scanned area being equal
to three times the length of the scanning trolley. Kousek, col. 6, ll. 34–38.
Kousek further teaches the area to be scanned appears on the monitor and, as
displayed, the area is subdivided into nine partial areas as shown on the
monitor by the broken lines. Id., ll. 41–44.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
1 and 3–13.

DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1 and 3–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.

REVERSED