Ex Parte TitoloDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201612598108 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/598,108 10/29/2009 Massimiliano Titolo 01500003US 6323 62008 7590 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC 345 South Patrick Street ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER FAYYAZ, NASHMIYA SAQIB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2856 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2017 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): patent @ maierandmaier. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASSIMILIANO TITOLO Appeal 2015-002699 Application 12/598,108 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9-28. We have jurisdiction over appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2015-002699 Application 12/598,108 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 9 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 9. A method for performing an acceleration measurement based on an automatic self-check of two wide-band, single-axis or double-axis accelerometers, that are adapted to perform both a self-check and a self calibration, each accelerometer comprising at least one accelerometric detecting unit, the accelerometric detecting unit being composed of at least a first and second accelerometric transducers adapted to read, in a parallel way, different frequency band, at least one electronic circuit for conditioning and digitising signals coming from the accelerometric detecting unit and at least one microprocessor adapted to read the signals through the conditioning and digitising circuit and to recombine the signals for every measuring axis into at least one global output signal, wherein: at least a first one of the first and the second accelerometric transducers is adapted to read a frequency band that starts from a frequency with value zero and at least a second one of the first and the second accelerometric transducers is adapted to read a frequency band that is partially overlapped with the band read by the first transducers; the first transducer is autonomously able to check an actual operation and calibration of the first transducer by cooperating with the microprocessor, starting from this check the microprocessor being then able, by checking common readings of accelerations of the transducers in the overlapped area of the different frequency ranges, to check and validate the second transducer and a possible chain of following transducers; and the first transducer is adapted to cooperate with the microprocessor to verily an actual operation and calibration of the first transducer by comparing a gravity acceleration with the frequency reading with value zero, the method comprising steps of: providing the first accelerometer as a low-frequency-band accelerometer able to read starting from Gravity acceleration at 0 Hertz; providing the second accelerometer as able to read on a measurement bandwidth required for measurement, said measurement bandwidth being partially overlapped to a measurement bandwidth of the first accelerometer; 2 Appeal 2015-002699 Application 12/598,108 reading values from the first and second accelerometers in a parallel way; placing the first accelerometer with one axis parallel to gravity direction, the accelerometric detecting unit reading an acceleration value at 0 Hz; comparing the read acceleration value with a local gravity value and using the compared acceleration value as reference for a measurement calibration of the first accelerometer; reading through the accelerometric detecting unit vibration value in an overlapping region for the first and the second accelerometers; using the acceleration reading at this frequency value to calibrate the second accelerometer in every direction. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Watson US 4,601,206 July 22, 1986 Vaganov US 2005/0160814 A1 July 28,2005 THE REJECTION Claims 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Vaganov. ANALYSIS We select claim 9 as representative of all the claims on appeal, based upon Appellant’s presented arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2014). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced 3 Appeal 2015-002699 Application 12/598,108 thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. We refer to the Examiner’s findings made on pages 2—3 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner relies upon Watson for teaching the claimed method except for not specifically checking the first transducer by using gravity acceleration, per se, but rather tries to place the first transducers at the “center of gravity.” Ans. 3, citing Watson, col. 5,11. 45 et seq. The Examiner relies upon Vaganov for teaching a system and method for a three axis accelerometer in which calibration is performed by subjecting the accelerometer to a known inertial force of “gravity” in three directions of the three axis, i.e., three vectorial modules and the outputs are measured to determine the offset in each axis and is used in further measurements as a self-check and self-calibration. Ans. 3, citing Vaganov, paras. [0114] and [0033]. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have included the calibration of the accelerometers in Watson using the known gravity measurement as disclosed by Vaganov because Watson also indicates the necessity for self-checking to remove the effects of offsets in the measurements of the low frequency responses which could taint the 4 Appeal 2015-002699 Application 12/598,108 measurement results, and because Watson teaches placement at the center of gravity to eliminate the effects of gravity. Ans. 3. Appellant argues that Vaganov fails to disclose the feature of verifying an actual operation and calibration of the first transducer by comparing a gravity acceleration with the frequency reading with value zero as “related to checking multiple transducers” and is silent with regard to checking common readings of accelerations of the transducers in the overlapped area of different frequency ranges. Appeal Br. 9— 10. However, as pointed out by the Examiner on page 4 of the Answer, Watson was relied upon for these features. The Examiner correctly points out that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Ans. A-5. Appellant also argues that the proposed modification to remove the effects of offsets in the measurements of the low frequency responses which could taint the measurement results lacks proper motivation. Appeal Br. 10— 12. We are in agreement with the Examiner’s stated reply made on page 5 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains that Vaganov provides the teaching for the modification by disclosing the known technique of calibration of a three axis accelerometer using a “known” inertial force of gravity and measuring the response of the accelerometers to determine initial offsets. Ans. 5, citing Vaganov, para. [0114], The Examiner further explains that there is no requirement in Vaganov for an additional step of placement of the accelerometers about the center of gravity which may require a difficult degree of accuracy. Ans. 5. The Examiner states that Watson also indicates the necessity for self-checking and removing the 5 Appeal 2015-002699 Application 12/598,108 effects of gravity offsets in the measurements by indicating placement of the transducers about the center of gravity. Id. The Examiner states that therefore the inclusion of the known technique disclosed by Vaganov of measuring the effects of gravity as an initial offset to the device of Watson does have motivation to combine for the purpose of eliminating the need for placement of the accelerometers about the center of gravity as required in the Watson device such that no further evidence is required as the evidence is provided in the record itself. We agree. Finally, Appellant argues that Watson states that its structure already achieves the goal of self-checking between the accelerometers and does not suggest further improvement is desired but rather places the first transducers at the center of gravity. Appeal Br. 11—12. We agree with the Examiner’s stated reply made on page 6 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that Vaganov teaches to calibrate multi-axis accelerometers using the known inertial force of gravity to eliminate initial offsets and further does not require placement of the accelerometers about the center of gravity. Ans. 6. The Examiner states that Watson teaches to calibrate using overlapping frequency ranges of measurements by low frequency accelerometers as compared to measurements by high frequency accelerometers, but also requires placement of the transducers equidistantly about the center of gravity to overcome offsets due to gravity in the low frequency range. Id. The Examiner states that one skilled in the art would have recognized that the known technique of Vaganov to measure the effect of the inertial force of gravity for calibration purposes of the accelerometers could be incorporated into the method of Watson in order to eliminate the requirement for accurate positioning of the transducers about 6 Appeal 2015-002699 Application 12/598,108 the center of gravity as needed by Watson, in order to compensate for gravity offsets created by lack of such positioning. Id. We agree. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). DECISION The rejection is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). ORDER AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation