Ex Parte Stienstra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2012

10477492 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

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.
10/477,492 11/12/2003 Marcelle Andrea Stienstra NL 010322 7484
7590 09/25/2012
Philips Electronics North America Corporation
Corporate Patent Counsel
PO Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
EXAMINER
ROSWELL, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2012 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 MARCELLE ANDREA STIENSTRA
____________________

Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DAVID M. KOHUT, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Marcelle Andrea Stienstra, the Appellant,
1
seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-13.
2
We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
Appellant states that the real party in interest is Koninklijke Phillips Electronics
N.V. Appeal Brief filed on July 9, 2009 (“App. Br.”).
2
App. Br. 6; Final Office Action mailed on February 13, 2009; Examiner’s
Answer mailed on December 29, 2009 (“Ans”) at 2.
Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s claims are generally directed to a system for transforming real-
time streams of content into a presentation to be output. See generally Abstract.
Application FIG. 2, as reproduced below, is helpful in understanding the
invention.

FIG. 2 depicts a user interface arranged to allow a user to interact with
streams of content, via output device 15

As shown in FIG. 2, the user interface includes a plurality of sensors 32
positioned around an interaction area 36 to determine a three-dimensional (3-D)
location in which a movement or sound is detected from a user within the
interaction area 36 (Spec. pg. 6, ll. 6-9). Each sensor 32 includes a motion sensor
34 for detecting user movements or gestures, a sound-detecting sensor 33 (e.g., a
microphone) for detecting sounds made by a user, or a combination of both a
motion sensor 34 and a sound-detecting sensor 33 (Spec. pg. 6, ll. 9-13).
Alternatively, the sensors can also be a grid of piezoelectric cables covering the
Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

3
floor of the interaction area 36 to sense the location and force of footsteps made by
a user (Spec. pg. 8, ll. 34-36). One or more streams of content can then be
manipulated and controlled for presentation, via an output device 15, based on the
type of movements or sounds detected within the interaction area 36 (Spec. pg. 6,
ll. 15-25; pg. 10, ll. 1-24).

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1-3 and 6-13 are on appeal. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, as reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A user interface for interacting with a device that
receives and transforms streams of content into a presentation to be
output, comprising:

an interaction area;

a plurality of sensors, located external to said interaction area,
for detecting a movement or sound made by a user within said
interaction area,

wherein detection signals from at least two of said plurality of
sensors are substantially simultaneously received and analyzed to
determine a location within said interaction area in which said
detected movement or sound occurs, and

wherein one or more streams of content are manipulated based
on said detected movement or sound, and

wherein the presentation is controlled based on said
manipulated streams of content.

Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

4
Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal
is:
Best U.S. 4,569,026 Feb. 4, 1986
Gurner U.S. 5,442,168 Aug. 15, 1995
Iannazo U.S. 5,882,204 Mar. 16, 1999
Flack U.S. 6,288,704 B1 Sep. 11, 2001

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3 and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gurner et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,442,168 (Gurner ‘168) in view
of Iannozo, U.S. Patent No. 5,882,204 (Iannozo ‘204). Ans. 3-6.
(2) Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gurner ‘168 and Iannozo ‘204, and further in view of Best, U.S.
Patent No. 4,569,026 (Best ‘026). Ans. 6-7.
(2) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gurner ‘168 and Iannozo ‘204, and further in view of Flack et
al., U.S. Patent No. 6,288,704 (Flack ‘704). Ans. 8.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
rejecting the claims as being obvious over Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 because
the teachings of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 are not compatible and, therefore,
cannot be combined in the manner suggested by the Examiner. In particular, the
issue turns on whether:
Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

5
(a) the teaching of Iannazo ‘204 that “detection signals from at
least two of said plurality of sensors are substantially simultaneously
received and analyzed to determine a location within said interaction area
in which said detected movement or sound occurs” can be incorporated into
an optical controller of Gurner ‘168 in order to arrive at claim 1; and
(b) the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 in order to arrive at claim 1.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of facts (FF) are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Office).
Gurner ‘168
1. Gurner ‘168 discloses an optical controller 136 for use on a video
game system 138, 144, and 148, shown in FIG. 9 as reproduced below, that can
accommodate video games of action such as boxing, martial arts, sports, etc., while
permitting the player 146 to act out the role of the video character in real life
simulation (see col. 2, ll. 54-60).

Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

6
Figure 9 is reproduced below:

FIG. 9 depicts a video game operation
2. According to Gurner ‘168, the optical controller 136 includes eight (8)
panels 132-136 positioned around an interaction area to determine the movements
of a user (player) within the interaction area. Each panel 10 is provided with a
sensor 15 to detect and distinguish between the movements of hand/arm or foot/leg
of the user (player) within the interaction area. Based on changes in the radiation
received by the various sensors 15, the movements of the user (player) are then
translated into simultaneous movements of a corresponding video character 148,
via a central processor. (See col. 10, ll. 43-48; col. 16, ll. 19-42).

Iannazo ‘204
3. Iannazo ‘204 disclose a sports simulation trainer 11, shown in FIG. 1
as reproduced below, for quarterbacks and kickers provides true perspective views
of a simulated playing area during practice plays (see col. 1, ll. 44-47).

Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

7
Figure 1 is reproduced below:

FIG. 1 depicts a sport simulation trainer

4. According to Iannazo ‘204, the trainer includes an actual playing area
17 and a simulated playing area 19 provided by video wall 21 as a continuation of
playing area 17, and a sonic tracking system 32 to detect and analyze motion of
objects such as players and the football in actual playing area 17 (See col. 2, ll. 60-
67; col. 3, ll. 63-65). The tracking system 32 has a plurality of ultrasonic
transducers 33, 35 spaced apart around the perimeter of an actual playing area 17
for detecting positions of the training player and motion of the football during a
practice play. (See col. 3, ll. 65-67). The transducers 33, 35 are selectively
grouped and directed in selected directions to establish regions of overlap so that
several of the transducers 33, 35 will simultaneously detect the positions of the
training player and several of the transducers 33, 35 will simultaneously detect the
motion of the football. (See col. 4, ll. 1-12).

Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

8
IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Claim Construction
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

Obviousness
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405 (2007).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a
patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” id. at 415, and
discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious
without an explicit application of the teaching, suggestion, motivation (TMS) test.
In particular, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent
that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. The
Court explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives
and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

9
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.

Id. at 417. The operative question is “whether the improvement is more than
the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”
Id.
The Supreme Court made clear that:
[f]ollowing these principles may be more difficult in other cases than
it is here because the claimed subject matter may involve more than
the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere
application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement.

Id. The Court explained:
[o]ften, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all
in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
issue.

Id. at 418.
Consequently, as long as there is “an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue,” and the Examiner has
provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness,” the rejections based on obviousness can be
Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

10
sustained. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Such a reason may be found in “interrelated teachings of
multiple patents; the effects of [design or marketplace] demands . . . and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418

V. ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner’s
rejections and the Examiner’s responses in light of Appellant’s contentions that the
Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments and
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the final Office Action, and (2) the detailed findings and responses set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to each of the
arguments raised by Appellant in the Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner and further emphasize the following:

Independent claims 1, 9, and 10
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends that the combination of Gurner
‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 is improper because Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 utilize
two different and incompatible techniques to determine a user position (App. Br. 9-
11). In particular, Appellant argues that Iannazo ‘204 “requires simultaneous
measurement by several transducer detectors [sensors] … to determine a player's
position in 3-dimensional space”, whereas Gurner ‘168 “teaches to avoid such
simultaneous measurements” (App. Br. 10).
Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

11
We disagree. As properly noted by the Examiner, Gurner ‘168 already
discloses the use of a plurality of sensors 15 to determine a position of a user in an
interaction area based on “changes in the radiation received by the various sensors”
(see col. 10, ll. 47-48 of Gurner ‘168; Ans. 9). Iannazo ‘204 simply suggests the
simultaneous measurement by transducers (sensors) to determine a position of a
user (player) in an interaction area (see col. 3, ll. 63-67; col. 4, ll. 1-12). The
specific tracking technique of Iannazo ‘204 need not be bodily incorporated into
the optical controller of Gurner ‘168; rather, consideration should be given to what
the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the
nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
In that regard, the Supreme Court has indicated that it is in error to:
assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem
will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
same problem.... Common senses teaches . . . that familiar items may
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of puzzle.

KSR at 420 (2007) (citation omitted).
Furthermore, a skilled artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching
of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
judgment (see Lear Seigler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). As such, we see no reason why the simultaneous sensor measurement as
suggested by Iannazo ‘204 cannot be implemented into the optical controller of
Gurner ‘168, as both Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 are directed towards the same
Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

12
central purpose, “providing control signals in response to the ‘dynamic stimuli’ of
a user position in an interactive area” as correctly noted by the Examiner (Ans. 9).
Such an implementation is simply a substitution of one element for another known
in the field - an obvious improvement. See KSR at 417.
Appellant further contends that there is no motivation to combine Gurner
‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 in the manner claimed in claim 1. In particular, Appellant
argues that Gurner ‘168 teaches away from the 3-dimensional detection method
employed by Iannazo ‘204.
We also disagree. The 3-dimensional detection method employed by
Iannazo ‘204 is not being incorporated into Gurner ‘168; rather, the suggestion
from Iannazo ‘204 of the simultaneous measurement by transducers (sensors) to
determine a position of a user (player) in an interaction area (see col. 3, ll. 63-67;
col. 4, ll. 1-12).
Moreover, and as correctly noted by the Examiner, Gurner ‘168 does not
preclude “simultaneous measurement” and in no way “teaches away” from the
simultaneous detection method of Iannazo ‘204 (Ans. 9).

Dependent claims 2-3 and 6-8
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of dependent
claims 2-3 and 6-8. App. Br. 12 and 13. As such, these claims fall with
independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

13
Dependent claims 11-13
Appellant further contends that neither Gurner ‘168 nor Iannazo ’204
discloses or suggests detection of movements by more than one user in the
interaction area. App. Br. 12.
However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Iannazo ‘204 discloses
the sonic tracking system that tracks the motion of a plurality of objects “such as
training players and the football” (see col. 3, ll. 63-65; col. 6, ll. 38-43; Ans. 10)
Appellant’s arguments have not demonstrated why multiple users cannot be
monitored in the optical controller of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204. We hold that
the mere combining of multiple users would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.
We do so because “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. “[I]n many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420.

VI. CONCLUSION
3

(a) The Examiner did not err in finding that Iannazo ‘204 teaches or
suggests “detection signals from at least two of said plurality of

3
In the event of further prosecution, independent claims 1, 9, and 10 should be
evaluated for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Gurner ‘168
independently from Iannazo ‘204, as Gurner ‘168 teaches the use of eight (8)
sensors 15 (see FIGS. 1, 2A, 9, and 10) to sense movements of a user within an
interaction area and detection signals from those sensors 156 are received and
processed by a central processor (see FIG. 4) to determine movements (or location)
within the interaction area.
Appeal 2010-006020
Application 10/477,492

14
sensors are substantially simultaneously received and analyzed to
determine a location within said interaction area in which said
detected movement or sound occurs” can be incorporated into an
optical controller of Gurner ‘168 in order to arrive at claim 1.
(b) The Examiner did not err in combining the teachings and suggestions
of Gurner ‘168 and Iannazo ‘204 in order to arrive at claim 1.

VII. DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions to reject claims 1-3 and 6-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2009).

AFFIRMED

ELD