Ex Parte Shibata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2016

13011126 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/011, 126
38485 7590
ARENT FOX LLP
FILING DATE
0112112011
02/10/2016
1675 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Akihiko Shibata
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.
036433.03051 4036
EXAMINER
WONG,KINC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2016 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):
NYIPDocket@arentfox.com
Patent_Mail@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKIHIKO SHIBATA
Appeal2014-003825
Application 13/011,126
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-16, all the pending claims in the present
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 3 5 U.S. C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a fall detection apparatus.
See Abstract.
Appeal2014-003825
Application 13/011,126
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A fall detection apparatus that detects a fall on the basis
of an output signal of an acceleration sensor, the apparatus
compnsmg:
an acceleration detector configured to obtain detected
acceleration values in three axis directions orthogonal to one another;
and
a fall determination output unit configured to obtain a
determination value which is, among the detected acceleration values
in the three axis directions obtained by the acceleration detector, a
difference between the detected acceleration value corresponding to a
reference axis direction and the detected acceleration value not
corresponding to the reference axis direction, and configured to
generate a falling state signal when a preliminary determination state
in which the determination value is within a predetermined range
continues for a predetermined continuation time or longer.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mutoh (US 6,570, 726 B2, May 27, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-16
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Mutoh discloses an
acceleration detector configured to obtain acceleration values in three axis
directions orthogonal to one another, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellant contends "Mutoh determines the dropping state of a laptop
from only the output of the touch sensors 20 and 21 [and] [t]he output of the
single-axis acceleration sensor is only used in Mutoh to determine if an
impact limit has been reached" (App. Br. 3).
2
Appeal2014-003825
Application 13/011,126
The Examiner finds that ivlutoh's element 45 in figure 4 describes "an
inherent three dimensional detection device" (Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 2
and 4) and "in col. 2, ... Mutoh describes the three dimensional detections
or three axial sensing/detections" (id.).
Looking at the emphasis in Appellant's arguments (see App. Br. 3), it
appears that Appellant is merely emphasizing that Mutoh fails to disclose an
acceleration detector detecting values in three axis directions orthogonal to
one another. On this record, we find Appellant has failed to present
substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error
regarding the aforementioned disputed limitation. See In re Lovin, 652 F .3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 201 l)("we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.").
The Examiner finds that Mutoh's acceleration sensor 45 inherently
includes a three dimensional detection component (see Ans. 5, citing Mutoh
col. 2:22-24; showing that an acceleration sensor utilizes a gyrosensor-a
three axis component) and Appellant fails to rebut this specific finding.
Instead, Appellant merely contends that Mutoh has a single-axis acceleration
sensor, without providing any supporting evidence of the same, as it is not
readily apparent in the citations proffered by Appellant whether Mutoh's
acceleration sensor is a single-axis component (see App. Br. 4).
We decline to examine the claims sua sponte, looking for distinctions
over the prior art. Cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
3
Appeal2014-003825
Application 13/011,126
distinctions over the prior art."). See also Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-
004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3-4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
In view of the above discussion, since Appellant has not demonstrated
that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the disclosure of
Mutoh, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of representative
independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-16 not separately argued by
Appellant, is sustained.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's § 102(b) rejection.
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).
AFFIRMED
JRG
4