Robert Bosch Tool Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2021

2019004982 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 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.
15/223,679 07/29/2016 Gwendolyn McDonald BLLC.P0154US/1000341677 1023
24972 7590 01/06/2021
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
GUILLERMETY, JUAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2021 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GWENDOLYN MCDONALD
____________

Appeal 2019-004982
Application 15/223,679
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and AMEE A. SHAH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 7, 16, and 19–22, which are all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Robert Bosch Tool Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004982
Application 15/223,679

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s “invention relates generally to authenticating a user
of a 3D printer, and more specifically, to preventing unauthorized use of a
3D printer.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 7 and 16 are the independent claims. Claim 7 is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with lettered
bracketing for reference):
7. A method for authenticating a user of a 3D printer to
prevent unsafe use of the 3D printer, the method comprising:
[(a)] detecting, by a sensor, a respective pressure applied
simultaneously to each of a plurality of pressure points of a
detection surface of a touchscreen interface of the 3D printer,
wherein the detected simultaneously applied pressures in
combination form a force on the touchscreen interface and
wherein the plurality of pressure points correspond to a plurality
of input locations;
[(b)] determining, by processing circuitry, that the force
on the touchscreen interface satisfies a force threshold value;
[(c)] determining, by the processing circuitry, that the
application to the touchscreen interface of the force satisfying the
force threshold value was performed by the simultaneous
application of respective pressure using at least a threshold
number of the plurality of input locations; and
[(d)] preventing, by the processing circuitry, operation of
the 3D printer for extruding a print material as a result of the
determination of the number of used input locations, wherein
operation of the 3D printer is conditioned upon the force
satisfying the force threshold value being applied to the
touchscreen interface by application of pressure using less than
the threshold number of the plurality of input locations.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.

Appeal 2019-004982
Application 15/223,679

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Coggill US 2012/0126941 A1 May 24, 2012
Hinson US 2015/0324018 A1 Nov. 12, 2015
Matsuda US 2017/0023929 A1 Jan. 26, 2017

REJECTIONS
Claims 7, 16, and 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite.
Claims 7, 16, and 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Coggill, Hinson, and Matsuda.

OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects all of the claims because dependent claims 21
and 22 “do[] not clearly recite the necessary requirements” for the recited
limitation recited in each claim of “authenticat[ing] a user of the 3D printer
as an adult.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). Specifically, the Examiner
interprets the limitation as “simply requir[ing] authenticating a user as ‘an
adult’ by detecting a force greater than the force threshold value is applied
using a single one of the input locations” (Ans. 3) and finds that “it is
unclear HOW the system will determine if the user is an adult as the moment
of authenticating” (Final Act. 3) and “not clear if the user is an adult, a child
or a person with physical disability will finish the authentication process”
(Ans. 3).
Appeal 2019-004982
Application 15/223,679

4
The Appellant notes that claims 7, 16, 19, and 20 do not require this
limitation, and thus the rejection of these claims is in error. Appeal Br. 4.
We agree.
The Appellant further contends that claims 21 and 22 are definite and
“clearly recite the criteria required for the authentication [as an adult], i.e.,
input of threshold force and at a single input location.” Id. We agree. The
Examiner and the Appellant agree that the claims require “authenticating a
user as ‘an adult’ by detecting a force greater than the force threshold value
is applied using a single one of the input locations.” Ans. 3; Appeal Br. 4.
We disagree with the Examiner that this requires some further finishing step.
Rather, we agree with the Appellant that one of ordinary skill would
understand the claims as reciting
that if a user is applying a pressure to a single one of the input
locations and that pressure exceeds a threshold value, then that
user is unequivocally authenticated as being an adult regardless
of who the user actually is, and, if a user does not “finish the
authentication process,” e.g., does not apply sufficient pressure
to a single one of the input locations, then that user will not be
authenticated as an adult.
Appeal Br. 5. We further agree with the Appellant that “claims 21 and 22 do
not recite that a user authenticated as an adult must in fact actually be an
adult.” Reply Br. 2.
Thus, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claims 7, 16,
and 19–22.
Obviousness
We are persuaded of Examiner error by the Appellant’s contention
that the Examiner does not adequately show how the combination of
Coggill, Henson, and Matsuda teaches or suggests preventing operation of
Appeal 2019-004982
Application 15/223,679

5
the 3D printer as a result of the determination of the number of used input
locations, wherein operation of the 3D printer is conditioned based on a
force being applied at less than a threshold number of input locations, as
recited in limitation (d) of claim 7 and similarly recited in claim 16. Appeal
Br. 7. We consider the claims as a group with claim 7 representative. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Coggill teaches limitation
(c) of determining “that the application to the touchscreen interface of the
force satisfying the condition was performed by the simultaneous application
of respective pressure using at least a threshold number of the plurality of
input locations” and limitation (d) of preventing operation of the device as a
result of that determination. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner acknowledges
that Coggill does not teach “(a) that said condition is related to a force
threshold value that is required to compare forces; and (b) that said device is
a 3D printer for extruding a print material.” Id. For curing the first
deficiency regarding force, the Examiner relies on Hinson, and for curing the
second deficiency, the Examiner relies on Matsuda. Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner and the Appellant disagree on the interpretation of
limitation (d) that recites
preventing, by the processing circuitry, operation of the 3D
printer for extruding a print material as a result of the
determination of the number of used input locations, wherein
operation of the 3D printer is conditioned upon the force
satisfying the force threshold value being applied to the
touchscreen interface by application of pressure using less than
the threshold number of the plurality of input locations.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. The Examiner finds that “[t]he claim limitations
require if the number of input is less than a threshold (as an alternate
Appeal 2019-004982
Application 15/223,679

6
condition), then prevent[ing] using any type of function or operation (e.g.,
alternate result).” Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds that Coggill meets the
limitations in teaching that “when the user didn’t complete the sequence,
pattern or combination of (pressed or forced) inputs (because is less amount
of inputs), then access is denied (restricted or not permitted), therefore no
access to functions.” Id.; see also Final Act. 5 (citing Coggill ¶¶ 77, 98, 104,
106). The Appellant contends that claim 7 “however, recite[s] the opposite:
if the applied force uses less than the threshold number of input locations,
then the condition is satisfied and operation is possible, i.e., access is
granted.” Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 7.
The claim limitations require a determination that the force satisfying
the force threshold was performed using at least a threshold number of input
locations (limitation (c)), preventing operation of 3D printer as a result of the
determination (limitation (d)), and wherein operation of the 3D printer is
conditioned upon the force satisfying the force threshold being applied by
using less than the threshold number of inputs (limitation (d)). The
Specification discusses “preventing use of the 3D printer if the applied force
is less than the force threshold value” and “preventing use of the 3D printer
if the number of inputs used to apply the applied force is greater than one.”
Spec. ¶ 16. Figure 4 depicts a method with steps for determining if the user
is using more than one input to apply the force; if so, then the user is not
authenticated for operation of the 3D printer, but if the force is sensed as
having been applied using a single input, then the user is authenticated. Id.
¶¶ 39, 40.
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification (see In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
Appeal 2019-004982
Application 15/223,679

7
(Fed. Cir. 2004)), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand limitation
(d) to require that upon a determination that the application satisfying a force
threshold was performed by an application of pressure using at least, i.e.,
equal to or above, a threshold number of input locations, operation of the 3D
printer is prevented, whereas operation of the 3D printer would occur upon
that application satisfying the force threshold being performed using less
than the threshold number of input locations.
The Examiner relies on Coggill for preventing the function or
operation if the number of inputs is less than the threshold. Ans. 4; Final
Act. 5. As the Appellant states, this is the opposite of what is claimed.
Appeal Br. 7. As such, we agree with the Appellant that Coggill does not
teach preventing operation of the device when the application is performed
using at least a threshold number of inputs. And, “Hinson and Matsuda do
not cure these critical deficiencies and are not relied upon as such.” Id. at 8.
Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner erred, and we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 7, 16, and 19–22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s overall decision to reject claims 7, 16, and 19–22 is
reversed.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
7, 16,
19–22
112 Indefiniteness 7, 16,
19–22
7, 16,
19–22
103(a) Coggill, Hinson,
Matsuda
7, 16,
19–22
Appeal 2019-004982
Application 15/223,679

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
7, 16,
19–22

REVERSED