Ex Parte Mathan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

11350310 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
11/350,310 02/08/2006 Santosh Mathan H0010596-5608 (002.2382) 8749
89955 7590 01/04/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
FRISBY, KESHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANTOSH MATHAN, STEPHEN D. WHITLOW,
MICHAEL C. DORNEICH, and
PATRICIA M. VERVERS
Appeal 2014-009676
Application 11/350,310
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Santosh Mathan et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—14 and 16—24.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Claim 15 was canceled. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2014-009676
Application 11/350,310
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1,9, 14, 19, and 22 are pending. Claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter, with the key
disputed limitation italicized.
1. A method of teaching a student, the method
comprising:
attaching a plurality of sensors to the student to obtain
the student’s cognitive state;
providing a temporally continuous simulation to a
student that has an objective to accomplish, wherein to achieve
the objective a plurality of definable tasks must be correctly
completed;
via a processor, tracking and recording progress of the
student through the temporally continuous simulation;
associating an output of the plurality of sensors with the
progress of the student during a term of the temporally
continuous simulation;
providing direction to the temporally continuous
simulation during the term of the temporally continuous
simulation based at least in part on the output from the plurality
of sensors;
indexing areas in the temporally continuous simulation
based on signals indicating the student’s cognitive state for later
review, and
providing feedback to the student as the student
completes the plurality of tasks based at least in part upon
performance in completing each task and a student’s cognitive
state while completing the task.
2
Appeal 2014-009676
Application 11/350,310
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5—14, 16, 18—20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Freer (US 6,626,676 B2; iss. Sept.
30, 2003) and Blazey (US 6,293,904 Bl; iss. Sept. 25, 2001). Final Act. 2.2
II. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freer, Blazey, and Lee (US 5,267,865; iss. Dec. 7, 1993).
Final Act. 9.
III. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freer, Blazey, and Hodges (US 5,807,114; iss. Sept. 15,
1998). Final Act. 10.
IV. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freer, Blazey, and Ho (US 2002/0086272 Al; pub. July 4,
2002). Final Act. 11.
V. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freer, Blazey, and Obrador (US 2003/0118974 Al; pub.
June 26, 2003). Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “indexing areas in the
temporally continuous simulation based on signals indicating the student’s
cognitive state for later review.” Independent claims 9 and 19 similarly
recite “indexing areas in the temporally continuous simulation based on the
student’s cognitive state for later review.” Independent claim 14 recites “a
2 The Final Action lists claims 1, 2, 5—13, 19, 20, 22, and 23 as rejected over
Freer and Blazey in the heading, yet treats claims 14, 16, and 18 in the body
of the rejection. Final Act. 2, 6—7. We consider the heading to contain a
typographical error.
3
Appeal 2014-009676
Application 11/350,310
controller adapted to . . . index areas in the temporally continuous simulation
based on the student’s cognitive state information for later review.”
Independent claim 22 recites “a means of indexing areas in the temporally
continuous simulation indicating at least the student’s neurophysiological
state for later review.”
Regarding indexing, Appellants’ Specification states that “in one
embodiment, the system indexes text or video segments where the student’s
attention level was low and prompts the students to revisit those segments
later in time.” Spec. 120. The ordinary meaning of the verb “index” is to
provide with an index. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/index (last visited Dec. 27, 2016). The
ordinary meaning of the noun “index” includes “a number . . . derived from
a series of observations and used as an indicator or measure.” Id. This
ordinary meaning is consistent with use of the term “index” in Appellants’
Specification.
The Examiner finds that Freer discloses most of the limitations of the
independent claims, but does not disclose the “indexing” limitation. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner finds, however, that Blazey discloses the indexing
limitation. Id. (citing Blazey 7:48—54, Figs. 6, 7 (with associated text)).
The cited portion of Blazey discusses a biometric analyzer portion of
a system for managing a person’s physiological or psychological state, and
discloses periodically recording biological information as a person views
images and performs mildly stressful activities. Blazey 7:48—58. A subset
of the recorded information is selected for use and analyzed for
“physiological measures.” Id. at 55—58. Regarding the analysis performed
on the selected subset of recorded information, Blazey breaks the subset into
4
Appeal 2014-009676
Application 11/350,310
segments representing periods of baseline, stress, and rest (Bi-Bx, Si-Sx, S2-
Sx, Ri-Rx, R2-RX), and creates a histogram or spectrum for each period that is
further analyzed to create a set of weights/loadings and a set of
scores/summary values. Id. at 7:55—8:43. Blazey’s Figure 7 illustrates heart
rate data for which a periodogram is calculated. Id. at 8:46—51. Blazey’s
Figure 6 illustrates EMG data for which a histogram is created. Id. at 8:52—
55.
The Examiner contends that Appellants do “not state what type of
indexing is required[,] which means that this limitation is viewed in its
broadest reasonable interpretation.” Ans. 4. The Examiner fails however, to
define such a reasonable interpretation, finding that because Blazey’s “data
is collected several times a second while performing an action, indexing is
performed throughout the temporally continuous simulation (i.e. the set of
images being shown and/or the sequence of presentation of the images).” Id.
at 4—5. The Examiner thus appears to consider the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “indexing” to include periodic data collection.
Appellants argue that “even if one agrees that ‘collecting data’ is
synonymous with ‘indexing,’ Blazey still fails to [disclose] ‘indexing areas
in the temporally continuous simulation.’” Reply Br. 4. Appellants are
correct. Even if we consider the Examiner’s broad interpretation of
“indexing” to be reasonable, Blazey does not disclose indexing the
simulation that the user is watching. The Examiner provides no finding of a
correlation between Blazey’s biological data collection/analysis and its
simulation.
For this reason, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
established prima facie obviousness of any of independent claims 1, 9, 14,
5
Appeal 2014-009676
Application 11/350,310
19, and 22, or the claims that depend therefrom. In addition, the Examiner
does not find that any of Lee, Hodges, Ho, or Obrador cure this deficiency of
the combination of Freer and Blazey. We therefore do not sustain the
pending rejections.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—14, 16, 18—20, 22, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Freer and Blazey.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Freer, Blazey, and Lee.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freer, Blazey, and Hodges.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freer, Blazey, and Ho.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freer, Blazey, and Obrador.
REVERSED
6