Ex Parte Lynggaard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

11812351 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

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.
11/812,351 06/18/2007 Stefan Lynggaard 09059.0044-01000 1550
22852 7590 09/29/2014
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2014 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 STEFAN LYNGGAARD, JOHAN ZANDER,
OLA SANDSTROM, and MAGNUS HOLLSTROM
____________

Appeal 2012-000100
Application 11/812,351
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, LARRY J. HUME, and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 78–99. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2012-000100
Application 11/812,351

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to processing digitally
recorded data in an electronic pen. Spec. 1:2–4.
Independent claim 78, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
78. A method in an electronic pen, comprising:
importing non-position data via an import interface of the
electronic pen;
storing the imported non-position data in a memory of
the electronic pen;
determining position data in a predefined coordinate
system when the electronic pen writes on a product during
movement of the electronic pen on the product, wherein the
position data is used to code an absolute position on the product
such that a stroke of the electronic pen on the product is
represented based on the coded absolute position; and
processing the position data on the basis of the stored
non-position data.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 78, 79, and 90–94 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Mori (US 6,072,917, June 6, 2000) and
Lazzouni (US 5,661,506, Aug. 26, 1997).
The Examiner rejected claims 80–89 and 95–99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Mori, Lazzouni, and Johnson (US 5,060,980,
Oct. 29, 1991).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Mori’s control data
represented by control dot code 56 and the multimedia information
Appeal 2012-000100
Application 11/812,351

3
represented by data dot code 52 correspond respectively to Appellants’
claimed “non-position data” and “position data” (App. Br. 12). We agree.
The Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning or argument as to
how Mori’s multimedia data is position data. The Examiner merely relies on
column 4, lines 62–67 of Mori, which states control data processes the
output format of multimedia information, thus concluding Mori teaches the
multimedia information (position data) is controlled by the control data
(Ans. 20). Appellants rebut this argument by stating the multimedia
information in Mori “does not contain any information about an absolute
position on the product from which it was obtained,” as claimed (Reply Br.
4; App. Br. 13). We agree Mori’s multimedia information does not
correspond to Appellants’ “position data” in view of Mori’s statement that
“the multimedia information include[s] audio information such as voice and
music, image information,” etc. (col. 1, ll. 10–14). The Examiner has not
shown this type of information corresponds to position information.
Thus, we are constrained by this record to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 78 and 94 which recite substantially the
same limitations, and claims 79–93 and 95–99 dependent respectively
therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 78–99 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc