Ex Parte Pennell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13212470 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/212,470 08/18/2011
87521 7590 10/04/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John D. Pennell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
59021US01 6301
EXAMINER
STIFTER JR, TERENCE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN D. PENNELL
Appeal2015-005354
Application 13/212,470
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Poisson1 in view of Parkinson.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims on appeal are directed to a pulse displacement system (claims 1-
9) and a method for determining a duty cycle in a pulse displacement system
(claims 10-18). The Appellant argues the patentability of claims 1-18 as a group.
1 US 5,327,360 A, issued July 5, 1994 ("Poisson").
2 US 4,488,443, issued December 18, 1984 ("Parkinson").
Appeal2015-005354
Application 13/212,470
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, claims 2-18 stand or fall with the
patentability of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (2014).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief dated September 16, 2014 ("Br."). The limitations at issue are
italicized.
Br. 6.
1. A pulse displacement system, comprising:
a sensor for generating an analog waveform indicative of an
angular displacement of a reference wheel from a displacement wheel;
a comparator for generating a pulse waveform of the analog
waveform;
a flip flop for generating a duty cycle waveform responsive to
the generating of the pulse waveform;
a clock for generating high frequency clock pulses;
a first counter for accumulating a first count of the clock pulses
from the clock during N+ 1 high states of the duty cycle waveform;
a second counter for accumulating a second count of the clock
pulses from the clock during lv loHJ states of the duty cycle 1AJaveform;
and
a processor for determining a first average for the first count
and determining a second average for the second count;
wherein the first count includes an additional high state over
the low state; and
wherein the processor calculates a duty cycle of the pulse
waveform as a function of the first average and the second average.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Poisson discloses a pulse displacement system
comprising, inter alia, a clock for generating high frequency clock pulses, a first
counter for accumulating a first count of the clock pulses during high states of a
duty cycle waveform, and a second counter for accumulating a second count of the
2
Appeal2015-005354
Application 13/212,470
clock pulses during low states of the duty cycle waveform. Final 4--5. 3 The
Examiner finds Poisson does not disclose that "the first counter accumulates a first
count during N+ 1 high states (TM), the second counter accumulates a second count
during N low states (TS), the processor wherein the first count includes an
additional high state over the low state." Final 5; see also Ans. 3 (finding that
Poisson Figs. 3(a}-3(e) shows 3 high states (TM duration) and 3 low states (TS
duration)).4 Nonetheless, the Examiner finds:
[T]he selection of having the first counter accumulate a first count for
N + 1 high state and the second counter accumulate a second count for
N low states is merely one of a finite number of identified solutions
for successfully operating the counters to analyze the incoming signal.
Specifically, the determination of the number of high and low states
can be defined as either N+ 1 high and N low, N high and N low, and
N-1 high and N low and is selected by establishing the conditions for
operating the counters using edge detection (turning counters on with
rising edge and off with falling edge for example).
Final 6; see also Ans. 3--4.
The Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify the invention of Poisson ... to include
the first counter accumulating a first count during N + 1 high states and
the second counter accumulating a second count during N low states
motivated by a desire to analyze the input signal over a defined time
period (using a rising edge and falling edge) and accurately analyze
the duration of the high state of the signal and the duration of the low
state of the signal for said time period.
Final 6.
The Appellant argues that " [ w] ithout a teaching in the art," the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness "can be nothing but hindsight." Br. 4.
3 Final Office Action dated May 8, 2014.
4 Examiner's Answer dated February 18, 2015.
3
Appeal2015-005354
Application 13/212,470
We disagree. One of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know something
about the art in addition to what the references disclose. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d
513, 516 (CCPA 1962); KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)
("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton."). In this case, the Examiner finds, and the Appellant does not dispute,
that the number of high and low states is a finite number and "can be defined as [ 1]
N+ 1 high and N low, [2] N high and N low, and [3] N-1 high and N low." Final 6.
On this record, the Appellant has failed to show that using the first alternative
identified above (i.e., N+ 1 high and N low) in Poisson's system, as proposed by
the Examiner, would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
The Appellant also argues that Poisson does not teach "division by N to
obtain an average" as recited in claim 1. Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Poisson discloses a processor for determining a first
average for the first count and a second average for the second count. Final 5
(citing Poisson, col. 5, 11. 52----67 (equations 8 and 9)). The Appellant does not
direct us to any error in the Examiner's finding. Therefore, the Appellant's
argument is not persuasive of reversible error. 5
For the reasons set forth above and reasons provided in the Examiner's
Answer, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-18 is sustained.
5 To the extent that the Appellant is arguing that Poisson fails to disclose that "the
processor calculates a duty cycle of the pulse waveform as a function of the first
average and the second average" as recited in claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Parkinson, not Poisson, teaches that limitation. Final 5. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify the invention of Poisson to include the
claimed calculation. Final 5----6. On appeal, the Appellant does not direct us to any
error in the Examiner's finding of fact or conclusion of obviousness.
4
Appeal2015-005354
Application 13/212,470
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
5