Ex Parte Xie et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 16, 201210827864 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte TONG XIE, MICHAEL BROSNAN, TIONG HENG SIAH, TONG SEN LIEW, and LYE HOCK BERNARD CHAN ________________ Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 2 SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of independent claim 1, 7, and 14 and dependent claims 2-6, 7-13, and 15-20 which stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rotzoll (US 7,122,781 B2, Oct. 17, 2006) and Piot (US 2005/0168445 A1, Aug. 4, 2005). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Independent claim 1 is representative of claims 1-6 1 : 1. A method for performing illumination spot alignment comprising: capturing an image by an image array; evaluating the image to determine an illumination spot size and location; and, storing coordinates identifying the illumination spot size and location. Br. 19. Independent claim 7 is representative of claims 7-13: 1 Because Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for the same reasons with respect to dependent claims 2-6, which depend from independent claim 1, we choose claim 1 as representative. Similarly, we choose independent claim 7 as representative of dependent claims 8-13 and independent claim 14 as representative of dependent claims 15-20. Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 3 7. A pointing device, comprising: an image array; initialization selector that selects a data path for data from the image array; and, an illumination spot identifier that receives the data from the image array when the pointing device is in a special mode, the illumination spot identifier identifying a subset of the image array as being within an illumination spot. Br. 20. Independent claim 14 is representative of claims 14-20: 14. A pointing device, comprising: array means for producing an array of output signals that represent detected illuminance; selection means for selecting a data path for data from the array means; and, identification means for receiving the data from the array means when the pointing device is in a special mode, and for identifying a subset of the output signals as being within an illumination spot. Br. 22 ISSUES Claim 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 1 was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rotzoll and Piot. Specifically, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 4 that the combined references teach “evaluating the image to determine an illumination spot size and location” as recited in claim 1. Br. 8. Moreover, the Appellants argue that the Examiner further erred in finding that Piot discloses or suggests “storing coordinates identifying the illumination spot size and location” as further recited in claim 1. Br. 9-10. Claim 7 Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 7 was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rotzoll. Br. 14. Appellants maintain that the Examiner erred in finding that Rotzoll discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 7, specifically, an “illumination spot identifier.” Id. Appellants also contend that the Examiner further erred in concluding that Rotzoll would have disclosed or suggested, to an artisan of ordinary skill, an “initialization selector that selects a data path for data from the image array” as recited in claim 1.” Br. 15. Claim 14 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred further in finding that claim 14 was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rotzoll. Br. 16. Appellants maintain that the Examiner erred in finding that Rotzoll discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 14, specifically, “identification means” as recited in claim 14. Id. Furthermore, Appellants maintain that the Examiner also erred in concluding that a “pointing device special mode” would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill, when no such a limitation is either disclosed or suggested by Rotzoll. Br. 17. Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 5 ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner misinterpreted Fig. 4B of Piot, which illustrates, in relevant part: the speckle field image that is received by the photosensor arrays 320a, 320b appears when the diffusely reflected light from the illumination spot 390 is received and passed through the optical element 310a, 310b having the artificially limited aperture 330a, 330b that is associated with the respective photosensor array 320a, 320b. More particularly, the speckle field image is based on the scattered light 305' from the reflected illumination spot 390 and is received and passed through the optical sensing assembly 260. The scattered light from the illumination spot 390 that is passed through the optical elements 310a, 310b and is fanned out so that it appears on, and is received by the respective photosensor arrays 320a, 320b.Piot, 6, ¶ 0062 (bold in original). In particular, Appellants point to Figure 4B, in which the outer dashed-line circle labeled 309'' in Fig. 4B “illustrates the size of the image of the illumination spot 390 relative to the photosensor array 320a, 320b.” Piot, 5, ¶ 0061 (bold in original). Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 6 Fig. 4B is reproduced below: Fig. 4B is a symbolic view illustrating a speckle field image on a photosensor array. The illumination spot 390 is projected onto the surface of the substrate beneath the optical device. Piot, 5, ¶ 0059, see also Piot Fig. 3. Appellants assert that the photosensor arrays (320a, 320b) are not capable of determining the size of the illumination spot because the illumination spot is larger than the photosensor arrays. Br. 8. The Examiner answers that Piot teaches a reflected illumination spot that passes through artificially limited apertures, which produces speckle images (410) on the photosensor arrays. Ans. 16. Furthermore, the speckle images have an image diameter at least equal to one pixel of the array, and that the location of the speckle images are stored in memory or storage as part of a pixel data. Id. According to the Examiner, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous art to Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 7 combine Rotzoll’s photodetector array of an optical pointing device with Piot’s photosensor array, along with the pixel value storage, because the use of a photosensor array with illumination spot indicator helps perform an image motion detection calculation for an optical pointing device as taught by Piot. Id. We find Appellants’ reasoning unpersuasive and therefore adopt the Examiner’s finding. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “capturing an image by an image array; evaluating the image to determine an illumination spot size and location; and, storing coordinates identifying the illumination spot size and location.” Br. 19. The “image captured by the array” that is evaluated to determine illumination spot size and location, as recited in claim 1, corresponds to the speckle images captured by the photosensor array disclosed by Piot’s Fig. 4B. Piot discloses that these speckle images have a diameter at least equal to one pixel of the array (Piot 7, ¶ 0075); however, Fig. 4B discloses that they are smaller than the entire array. Consequently, Appellants’ argument that the illumination spot is larger than the photosensor array which cannot, therefore, identify its size and location, fails. Furthermore, Piot discloses that the location of the speckle images are stored in memory or storage as part of a pixel data, which reads on “storing coordinates identifying the illumination spot size and location” as recited in claim 1. We therefore agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 is obvious over a combination of Rotzoll and Piot and affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 through 6. Claim 7 Appellants next argue that because the Examiner admitted that: “Rotzoll does not teach evaluating the image to determine an illumination Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 8 spot size, and storing coordinates identifying the illumination spot size” as recited in claim 7, Rotzoll fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 7, specifically “an illumination spot identifier.” Br. 14. Appellants also argue that because there is no disclosure or suggestion in Rotzoll of an “initialization selector that selects a data path for data from the image array” as disclosed in claim 7, the Examiner erred in rejecting the claim. Br. 15. The Examiner answers that Rotzoll illustrates the processing means and the photo-detector array as parts of the optical pointing device such that the processing means which includes a microcomputer processes signals outputted by the photo-detector array via the comparator array. Ans. 16-17. Furthermore, according to the Examiner, Rotzoll teaches the use of the processing means for intermittently sampling the pixel outputs of photo detector array in accordance with a defined sequence. Ans. 17. Thus, the Examiner concludes, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize Rotzoll's processing means [ ](which processes and samples signals received from the photo detector array [ ] via the comparator array for the purpose of manipulating data coming from the photo-detector array)”. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that “evaluating the image to determine an illumination spot size, and storing coordinates identifying the illumination spot size” would have been obvious over the combination of Rotzoll and Piot. However, we are not persuaded that Rotzoll discloses or suggests an “initialization selector that selects a data path for data from the image array” as disclosed in claim 7. Appellants’ Specification discloses that the initialization selector checks to see whether pointing Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 9 device is in the illumination spot identification mode, which is selected by toggling a switch within the pointing device. Spec. 3-4, ¶ 0015. During normal operation (e.g., not in an illumination spot identification mode), only pixels of the image array that are within a bounding box determined by data within a memory are forwarded to the analog-digital converter and used for movement/position tracking. Spec. 4, ¶ 0015. However, when the pointing device is in the illumination spot identification mode, digital data from the analog-to-digital converter is intercepted and sent to an illumination spot identification block. Data from all pixels within image array are used when pointing device is in the illumination spot identification mode. The illumination spot identification block then performs illumination spot alignment using the received data. Spec. 4, ¶ 0016. The Examiner has not presented any persuasive evidence or argument to support the conclusion that Rotzoll discloses or suggests an initialization selector that selects a data path for data from the image array,” as disclosed in claim 7, and that that limitation would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous art. Rotzoll does not disclose or suggest alternate modes of pointer device operation that would be toggled by any such initialization selector. Nor does it disclose or suggest the interception of data from the analog-to-digital converter which is then sent to an illumination spot identification block when the pointing device is in the illumination spot identification mode. Consequently we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7 and dependent claims 8 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rotzoll. Claim 14 Appeal 2010-003957 Application 10/827,864 10 As with claim 7, Appellants argue that because the Examiner admitted that: “Rotzoll does not teach evaluating the image to determine an illumination spot size, and storing coordinates identifying the illumination spot size” as recited in claim 7, Rotzoll fails to disclose all of the limitations of the claim 7, specifically the “identification means.” Br. 16. For the same reasons set forth above, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that “evaluating the image to determine an illumination spot size, and storing coordinates identifying the illumination spot size” would have been obvious over Rotzoll. Since this issue is dispositive as to the rejection of this claim, we need not reach the remaining arguments. We consequently reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rotzoll. CONCLUSION Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 6 is affirmed. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 through 20. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation