Ex Parte Purdy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2017

13750366 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 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.
13/750,366 01/25/2013 Glen L. Purdy 20120319-01 1760
126187 7590
Key sight Technologies, Inc.
In care of: CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
BADAWI, ANGIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2017 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):
key sightdocketing @ cpaglobal. com
notice, legal @key sight, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLEN L. PURDY and JONATHAN HELFMAN
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision
on Appeal entered July 5, 2017 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—12.
The Request for Rehearing is granted.
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
ANALYSIS
Claims 2 and 3
Appellant argues that:
[cjlaims 2 and 3 require that the feature input from the user
includes a feature type for the selected feature selected from a
plurality of predetermined feature types and that the vertical and
horizontal gains depend on the feature type, and that Alexander
does not teach a plurality of different feature types as defined in
the specification of the present application.
(Req. for Reh’g. 1.) In particular, Appellants argue, “with the exception of a
waveform, the only features listed by the Examiner were features of the
display in the GUI such as the vertical and horizontal markers” and “[tjhese
other ‘features’ do not satisfy the definition of a feature provided in the
specification.” (Id. (emphasis omitted.)) We are persuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
Dependent claim 2 recites “said feature type being chosen from a
plurality of predetermined feature types” (emphasis added). The Examiner
found that the display elements of Alexander, as illustrated in Figures 3B
and 4, such as waveforms, vertical or horizontal markers, correspond to this
limitation. (Ans. 15; see also Final Act. 6.)
However, Appellants’ Specification discloses that “a feature is
defined to be a region of the data array that satisfies some predetermined
algorithm” (115 (emphases added)) such that “<2 data array is defined to be
an ordered set of measurements in which each member of the array is
characterized by a value and an index in the array (12 (emphasis added)).
Furthermore, Appellants’ Specification discloses that one example of a data
array includes a waveform with a “series of amplitude measurements with
the index corresponding to the time at which the measurement was made.”
2
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
(Id.) Similarly, Appellants’ Specification discloses non-limiting examples
of a feature includes the “edge” or “peak” region of the waveform. (| 15.)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we interpret a “feature” as a region of an ordered set of
measurements, in which each member of an array is characterized by a value
and an index in the array (e.g., the edge or peak region of a waveform).
Thus, the Examiner’s finding that the claimed “feature type” encompasses
the waveforms, vertical or horizontal markers of Alexander (Ans. 15) is
inconsistent with the Specification.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claim 3 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to claim 2. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 2.
Claim 6
With respect to dependent claim 6, Appellants state “that the gain in
the horizontal gain in the third window was a predetermined value times the
horizontal gain in the second window and that the feature occupied a
predetermined portion of the third window,” and accordingly, Appellants
argue:
the feature identified by the Examiner, namely the portion of the
waveform in the window drawn by the user and shown in the
second window, was not entirely within the third window, since
the gain was greater in the third window, and hence, all of the
that “feature” would not fit using the feature identified by the
Examiner.
(Req. for Reh’g. 2.) We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
The Examiner found that the magnified waveform display, as
illustrated in Figure 3B of Alexander, in which the horizontal scale is 10
ns/division, corresponds to the “second horizontal gain.” (Ans. 17.) The
Examiner further found that adjusting the horizontal scale of the magnified
waveform display, from 10 ns/division, as illustrated in Figure 3B, to 50
ns/division, as illustrated in Figure 3D, corresponds to the limitation “a third
horizontal gain and a third vertical gain in which said third horizontal gain is
equal to a predetermined value times said second horizontal gain and said
third offset is chosen such that said selected feature occupies a second
predetermined portion of said third display window.” (Id.)
Independent claim 1 recites a “selected feature” and “a second display
window.” Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “a third horizontal gain
and a third vertical gain in which said third horizontal gain is equal to a
predetermined value times said second horizontal gain and said third offset
is chosen such that said selected feature occupies a second predetermined
portion of said third display window’’ (emphasis added). However, other
than reciting “that said selected feature occupies a second predetermined
portion of said third display window,” claim 6 does not require the entire
“selected feature” which is displayed in the second window to be also
displayed in the third selected window. Thus, Appellants’ argument that
“the portion of the waveform in the window drawn by the user and shown in
the second window [magnified waveform display 336 from Fig. 3B of
Alexander], was not entirely within the third window [magnified waveform
display 336 from Fig. 3D of Alexander]” (Req. for Reh’g. 2) is not
commensurate in scope with claim 6.
4
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
The Request for Rehearing has been considered and granted.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting dependent claims 2 and 3 is
reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting dependent claim 6 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)(iv).
REHEARING GRANTED
5