LEAP MOTION, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2021

2020004591 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2021)

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.
14/523,828 10/24/2014 David S. HOLZ ULTI 1015-2 2838
118265 7590 11/03/2021
Ultrahaptics IP Two Limited
c/o Haynes Beffel & Wolfeld LLP
P.O. BOX 366
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
EXAMINER
LAFONTANT, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2021 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):
DOCKET@HMBAY.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID S. HOLZ,
ROBERT SAMUEL GORDON, GABRIEL A. HARE,
NEELOY ROY, MAXWELL SILLS,
and PAUL DURDIK
____________

Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 28–48.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ultrahaptics IP Two Limited as the
real party in interest. Supp. Appeal Br. 2 (filed July 7, 2020).
2 Claims 1–27 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “the use of ordered scan patterns to
derive positional information for an object of interest in space.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 28 and 48 are independent. Claim 28, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (with italicized text showing
emphasis on limitations further discussed below):
28. A method of providing guidance to a mobile device
relative to a plurality of emitter arrays in a building, the method
including:
receiving in a mobile device first and second swept beam-
formed signals emitted by first and second emitter arrays situated
within a building, wherein the first and second swept beam-
formed signals are associated with time related data that varies
according to sweep of the first and second swept beam-formed
signals;
determining by the mobile device, a first angular position
for the mobile device about the first emitter array from at least
first received value of the time related data corresponding to
receipt of a maximum amplitude detected by the mobile device
from a beat of amplitude of a first mix of multiple frequencies
comprising the first swept beam-formed signal during a sweep of
the first swept beam-formed signal;
determining by the mobile device, a second angular
position for the mobile device about the second emitter array
from at least second received value of the time related data
corresponding to receipt of a maximum amplitude detected by
the mobile device from a beat of amplitude of a first mix of
multiple frequencies of the second swept beam-formed signal
during a sweep of the second swept beam-formed signal; and
determining from the first angular position of the mobile
device about the first emitter array and the second angular
position for the mobile device about the second emitter array, a
location of the mobile device within the building.
Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828

3
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hill US 2009/0149202 A1 June 11, 2009
Miwa US 6,572,550 B2 June 3, 2003
Champion US 2014/0123075 A1 May 1, 2014
Shapira US 2003/0073463 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Wäller US 2011/0022393 A1 Jan. 28, 2011

REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
29 101 Utility
28–37, 40–45, 48 103 Hill, Miwa
38 103 Hill, Miwa, Champion
39 103 Hill, Miwa, Shapira
46, 47 103 Hill, Miwa, Wäller

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
Claim 29 recites that “the first emitter array and the second emitter
array are disposed within [] at least one of a space station, a lunar based
living environment, a non-Earth planetary or interplanetary living
environment.” The Examiner rejects claim 29 as being “inoperative and
therefore lack[ing] utility.” Final Act. 12.
Appellant does not provide any arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s § 101 rejection. Accordingly, we summarily sustain this
rejection.
Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828

4
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
The Examiner finds that Hill discloses “determining by the mobile
device, a first angular position for the mobile device about the first emitter
array from at least first received value of the time related data corresponding
to receipt of a maximum amplitude detected by the mobile device,” as
recited in independent claim 28 and similarly recited in independent
claim 48. Final Act. 14–15 (citing Hill ¶¶ 8, 10–12, 66, 72; Figs. 1, 5;
Abstr.). Specifically, the Examiner cites Hill’s disclosure of a wireless
device determining its position relative to a group of other wireless devices
based on propagation delay times associated with query and response
messages, time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) measurements, and signal path
lengths. Id.; see Hill Abstr., ¶¶ 10–12.
The Examiner finds that Hill does not disclose “a maximum amplitude
detected by the mobile device from a beat of amplitude of a first mix of
multiple frequencies comprising the first swept beam-formed signal during a
sweep of the first swept beam-formed signal” as claimed. Final Act. 15–16;
Ans. 5. For that limitation, the Examiner relies upon Miwa, citing Miwa’s
disclosure of an ultrasonic imaging device that “transmits a plurality of
ultrasonic beams having mutually different frequencies.” Miwa 7:54–63
(cited at Final Act. 16 (also citing Miwa 2:49–65; Figs. 3, 7)); see also
Ans. 5–6, 8–9. The Examiner finds that Miwa “teaches about mixes of
multiple signal frequencies with transceiver[] capabilities” (Final Act. 16)
and determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to apply Miwa’s mixed frequencies to Hill in order to “mitigate issues
with signal frequencies component attenuation that can occur in
Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828

5
transmission.” Ans. 6; see id. at 11–12; Final Act. 16.3 The Examiner also
finds that “[m]ixing signals with different frequencies creates beats that can
be detected through amplitude modification and ultrasound beats.” Ans. 11.
Appellant argues that “[t]he cited portions of Miwa describe different
and freely changing frequency mixes” and that “none result in the recited
‘beat of amplitude of a first mix of multiple frequencies comprising the first
swept beam-formed signal during a sweep of the first swept beam-formed
signal.’” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). According to
Appellant, Miwa does not disclose a beat of amplitude, but rather a signal
having a constant amplitude and varying frequency. Id. at 13. Appellant
describes a “beat of amplitude” as meaning “a variation in the amplitude of a
wave, especially that which results from the superpositioning of two or more
waves of different frequencies.” Id. at 9 (emphases omitted) (citation
omitted).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not
shown how Miwa teaches the recited “maximum amplitude detected by the
mobile device from a beat of amplitude of a first mix of multiple
frequencies.” See Appeal Br. 12. Even if Miwa’s beams with different
frequencies would result in a beat of amplitude, the Examiner has not shown
that Miwa teaches or suggests a beat of amplitude used as claimed, i.e.,
detecting a maximum amplitude from a beat of amplitude in determining a
corresponding angular position. Furthermore, the Examiner has not

3 In a similar manner, the Examiner relies upon Hill and Miwa for the
limitation of “determining by the mobile device, a second angular position
for the mobile device about the second emitter array from at least second
received value of the time related data.” Final Act. 15–16.
Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828

6
sufficiently explained, nor can we discern from the present record, how
Hill’s method of determining position based on propagation delay times
associated with query and response messages, TDOA measurements, and
signal path lengths combined with Miwa’s mixed frequencies would result
in determining angular positions for a mobile device based on a maximum
amplitude detected from a beat of amplitude, as claimed. Accordingly, we
agree with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner failed to explain
sufficiently how Miwa teaches the use of the claimed “beat of amplitude” to
detect a maximum amplitude corresponding to angular position.
As for the reasons to combine, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
“explanation for why a person of [ordinary] skill in the art would introduce
the teachings of Miwa into Hill is conclusory and lacks rational
underpinning.” Appeal Br. 14−15. According to Appellant, Hill’s method
of determining the position of a wireless device relative to other wireless
devices relies on techniques concerning delay times, TDOA measurements,
and signal path lengths. Id. at 15. Hill, Appellant argues, has not been
shown to use mix frequency detection or that it would benefit from Miwa’s
teachings. Id. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s stated rationale
to combine the teachings of Miwa and Hill is deficient.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds a benefit of using Miwa’s
transmission of multiple frequency ultrasonic beams in Hill’s system: for
Hill to detect and process a few signal components in case attenuation
affects some frequencies. Final Act. 16. According to the Examiner, the
combined Hill and Miwa teachings would result in “an effective mobile
device locating system.” Id. But as Appellant points out, and we agree,
Hill’s query and response technique uses time difference of arrival sensed by
Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828

7
four antennas, and there is little in the record by way of explanation as to
how Miwa’s ultrasonic beams of multiple frequencies would be useful with
Hill’s TDOA technique. The Examiner’s reasons to combine are generic
and conclusory—claiming that somehow transmitting more frequency beams
would overcome attenuation of the transmitted signals when Hill’s technique
relies precisely on propagation components of specific signals.
Further, the Examiner’s Answer states that even though Hill uses
radar technology and position methods such as TDOA or RF signal path
delay to calculate location, Miwa provides “an additional or substitute
method to detect signal beats resulting from mixed signals with different
frequencies where a UE can send acknowledgement to the transmitter when
detected.” Ans. 11–12. More specifically, the Examiner finds that
“[d]etecting the beats in a mix signal can inform the UE of its angular
position or distance versus the emitter.” Id. at 11. This additional
explanation does not cure the deficiency in the Final Action noted above.
The Examiner’s rejection specifically relies on Hill’s technique of
calculating the azimuth and elevation angle to the signal source using the
recorded time of arrival technique. Final Act. 14; see also Ans. 5
(describing Hill’s signal data to determine position of the mobile terminal
using time delay, phase, amplitude and time of arrival together with RF
signal path). It is incumbent upon the Examiner to explain why the relied on
Hill technique would benefit, predictably, from Miwa’s technique. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.”). The Examiner’s finding
that Miwa provides another method, not the relied on method in Hill for
Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828

8
detecting position, does not align with the thrust of the rejection, and also
fails to explain how or why, if at all, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would choose Miwa’s technique as a substitute for Hill’s technique. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not
proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of independent claims 28 and 48 and claims 29–47 dependent
from them.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 28–48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
29 101 Utility 29
28–37,
40–45, 48
103 Hill, Miwa 28–37,
40–45, 48
38 103 Hill, Miwa, Champion 38
39 103 Hill, Miwa, Shapira 39
46, 47 103 Hill, Miwa, Waller 46, 47
Overall
Outcome
29 28, 30–48
Appeal 2020-004591
Application 14/523,828

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART