Amer Sports Digital Services Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2020006409 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 16/223,143 12/18/2018 Erik Lindman SUUN 68 US CIP 1 3901 95002 7590 03/02/2022 Laine IP Oy PO Box 339 Helsinki, FI-00181 FINLAND EXAMINER GUPTA, PARUL H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): USDesk@laineip.fi posti@laineip.fi PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ERIK LINDMAN, JYRKI UUSITALO, TIMO ERIKSSON, JARI AKKILA, MICHAEL MIETTINEN and NIKO KNAPPE ___________ Appeal 2020-006409 Application 16/223,143 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 5. Claims 1, 12 and 19 are independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 26, 2020), the Reply Brief (filed September 13, 2020), the Final Action (mailed September 26, 2019) and the Answer (mailed July 14, 2020), for the respective details. 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). (“The Footnote continued on the next page. Appeal 2020-006409 Application 16/223,143 2 We affirm. Introduction According to Appellant, “The present invention relates to the field of user devices, such as implementing multi-core or multi-chip embedded solutions.” Specification 1. Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. An apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to cause the apparatus to predict, based at least in part on a calendar application, a need for a rich media interface and to trigger startup of a higher capability processing device from among a low capability processing device and the higher capability processing device in the apparatus at a time that is selected based on the prediction. word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Amer Sports Digital Services Oy of Vantaa, Finland as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3. 3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 1, 12 or 19 individually. See Appeal Brief 13. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Footnote continued on the next page. Appeal 2020-006409 Application 16/223,143 3 References Name4 Reference Date Kanjilal US 2009/0100332 A1 April 16, 2009 Silva US 2014/0149754 A1 May 29, 2014 Wilson US 2016/0034133 A1 February 4, 2016 Knappe US 10,168,669 B2 January 1, 2019 Rejections on Appeal5 Claims 1-7, 9 and 12-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Silva and Kanjilal. Final Action 6-14. Claims 8, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Silva, Kanjilal and Wilson. Final Action 15-16. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Silva cause[s] the apparatus to trigger startup of a higher capability processing device (paragraph 0025 explains how the microcontroller 312 of figure 3 causes the sensor processor 308 of figure 3 to leave the hibernation or sleep state responsive to a wake up event determined by sensors and paragraph 0036 explains entering the sleep state based on user instruction) from among a low capability processing device (microcontroller 312 of figure 3) and the higher capability processing device (sensor processing component 308 of figure 3) in the apparatus at a time that is selected (based on sleep and wake up events described). Final Action 6-7 (emphasis added). The Examiner determines Silva discloses the claimed subject matter with the exception that Silva “does not teach to predict, based at least in part 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 5 Nonstatutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn by the Examiner. See Answer 3. Appeal 2020-006409 Application 16/223,143 4 on a calendar application, a need for a rich media interface and to cause action based on the prediction.” Final Action 7. The Examiner further determines that Kanjilal addresses Silva’s noted deficiency and “teaches to predict, based at least in part on a calendar application, a need for a rich media interface and to cause action based on the prediction.” Final Action 7 (citing Kanjilal ¶71). Appellant contends: While the cited portions of Silva disclose that the microcontroller can “do at least basic analysis in order to determine likely wake actions performed by a user”. [0010] This analysis consists of the microcontroller analyzing sensor data and, if the sensor data meets the criterion for a potential wake gesture, sending an interrupt to the processor in order to wake said processor. [0025] Appeal Brief 8. Appellant argues that “Silva does not appear to teach any form of prediction, but instead a form of filtered processing. Silva does not predict a future need but instead recognizes a current need.” Appeal Brief 8. Although the cited portions of Silva relate to “waking” the device and not particularly to triggering or selecting a higher capability processing device from among a low capability processing device as required in claim 1, one of ordinary skill would readily appreciate that waking a processor from a sleep mode to an active mode teaches or suggests transitioning the processor’s operation from a lower capability mode to a higher capability mode. In fact, Appellant’s own the Specification indicates the following: Device 110 may be configured to provide a display in at least two modes, a reduced media mode and a rich media mode. The reduced media mode may be renderable by a low-capacity processing device in device 110, while the rich media mode may require device 110 to activate a high-capacity processing device in device 110. Appeal 2020-006409 Application 16/223,143 5 Specification ¶ 54 (emphasis added). Further, we note the Examiner relies upon Kanjilal and not Silva to teach predicting as recited in claim 1. See Final Action 7. The Specification further discloses: An apparatus may predict, based at least in part on a calendar application, a need for a rich media interface and to trigger startup of a higher capability processing device from among a low capability processing device and the higher capability processing device in the apparatus at a time that is selected based on the prediction. The prediction may be based on a specific calendar event in the calendar application, the specific calendar event comprising an indication relating to an application used to process the calendar event. Specification ¶ 31 (emphasis added). Kanjilal discloses: Rich media calendar management interface 511 enables a user or a content provider to upload rich media content data to the central repository included in rich media extensions web service 501, to include the rich media content data into calendar events, and to create delivery schedules for rich media calendar events or rich media content. Kanjilal ¶ 71. In light of both the Specification’s and Kanjilal’s disclosures, we discern no meaningful difference between the claimed invention’s ability to “predict, based at least in part on a calendar application” and Kanjilal’s rich media calendar management interface because Appellant is merely using the calendar application to predict or schedule the use of a higher capability processing device in a similar manner as Kanjilal’s rich media calendar management interface predicts or schedules rich media uploads. See In re Appeal 2020-006409 Application 16/223,143 6 Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant further argues, “there does not appear to be any teaching of predicting the need for a higher capability processor within the cited portions of Kanjilal.” Appeal Brief 9 (citing Kanjilal ¶¶ 29, 71). Appellant contends, “Kanjilal merely teaches a rich media calendar, wherein a calendar event may have associated rich media content and does not appear to discuss any anticipation or prediction being used to trigger startup of a processing device.” Appeal Brief 9. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. Silva discloses that the computing device can include “notebook computers, personal data assistants, cellular phones, video gaming consoles or controllers, and portable media players, among others” and therefore the Silva’s computing device can accommodate rich media content. Silva ¶12; see Kanjilal, Abstract (“Rich media refers to digital media that exhibit either, or a combination, of dynamic or interactive properties, including video content, audio content, graphical content, hyperlinks, or browser based applications to such content.”). Accordingly, Silva’s device can accommodate rich media content and Kanjilal’s rich media calendar management interface has the ability to predict or schedule based upon a calendar application. See Silva ¶12; Kanjilal ¶ 71. Here, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to consider a calendar application with a need for a rich media interface as taught by Kanjilal et al. as a trigger in the system of Silva et al. The rationale to combine would be so that the calendar and timing of the user’s schedule can be used to ensure that the device processor appropriately wakes up using a rich media interface so that an author of a rich media event can program the modifications directly into the rich Appeal 2020-006409 Application 16/223,143 7 media calendar event, thereby obviating the need to manually modify the event each time a modification is desired (paragraph 0029 of Kanjilal et al.). Final Action 7; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Appellant argues, “There does not appear to be even an implicit disclosure within the prior art of a motivation to incorporate a predictive action to trigger a higher capability processor.” Appeal Brief 14. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error because the motivation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine prior art references need not be the same motivation that inspired the patent owner. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he skilled artisan need not be motivated to combine [a prior art reference] for the same reason contemplated by the [inventor]”). Further, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 12 and 19, commensurate in scope, as well as, the Appeal 2020-006409 Application 16/223,143 8 Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-11 and 13-18 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 13. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 9, 12-19 103 Silva, Kanjilal 1-7, 9, 12- 19 8, 10, 11 103 Silva, Kanjilal, Wilson 8, 10, 11 Overall Outcome 1-19 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)(v). AFFIRMED