Ex Parte Xie et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2012

10827864 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012)

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