Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2021

2020006077 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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.
15/114,860 07/28/2016 Anna-Katrina Shedletsky P20130US1 2048
145730 7590 03/01/2021
Dorsey & Whitney LLP/Apple Inc.
111 South Main St
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2021 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):
DWAppleteam@dorsey.com
apip.docket@dorsey.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANNA-KATRINA SHEDLETSKY, ERIK D. DE JONG,
FLETCHER R. ROTHKOPF, and SAMUEL B. WEISS
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, 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 1–21. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We conducted a telephonic hearing on
February 18, 2021.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br.
3.
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an automatic orientation of a device, and in
particular, displaying a user interface on a wearable electronic device based
on a determined orientation of the electronic device. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 21, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for presenting a user interface on a
wearable electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving touch input from a user via at least one sensor
coupled to the wearable electronic device, the at least one
sensor comprising a touch sensor, the touch input received by
the touch sensor indicating a direction from which the input is
provided to the user interface;
determining, based on only the touch input from the at
least one sensor, an orientation of the wearable electronic
device with respect to an object to which the wearable
electronic device is attached; and
displaying a user interface on a display of the wearable
electronic device, wherein the user interface is displayed in a
first orientation based, at least in part, on the determined
orientation of the wearable electronic device.
9. A method for presenting a user interface on a wearable
electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving input from a first sensor coupled to the
wearable electronic device, the first sensor being configured to
determine a direction of blood flow of the user;
determining, based on input from the first sensor, an
orientation of the wearable electronic device comprising at least
whether the wearable electronic device is on an inside of a wrist
of the wearer or on an outside of a wrist of the wearer;
determining, based on input from a second sensor and the
orientation of the wearable electronic device, whether a display
of the wearable electronic device is in a field of view of a
wearer of the wearable electronic device, wherein the display is
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

3
in the field of view of the wearer when the indicated front or
rear side of the wrist of the wearer faces the wearer;
when it is determined that the display of the wearable
electronic device is not in a field of view of the wearer of the
wearable electronic device, causing the display to enter a
standby mode; and
when it is determined that the display of the wearable
electronic device is in a field of the view of the wearer of the
wearable electronic device, displaying a user interface on the
display of the wearable electronic device, wherein the user
interface is displayed in a first orientation based, at least in part,
on the determined orientation of the wearable electronic device.

16. A device comprising:
a first sensor, the first sensor being configured to detect a
styloid;
a second sensor;
at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the
memory for storing instructions which, when executed by the at
least one processor performs a method for presenting a user
interface on a wearable electronic device, the method
comprising:
receiving input from the first sensor indicating whether a
display of the device is located on a front side or a rear side of a
wrist of a wearer of the wearable electronic device;
determining, based on input from the second sensor, an
orientation of the wearable device;
determining, based on the input from the first and second
sensors, whether the display is in a field of view of the wearer
of the wearable electronic device, wherein the display is in the
field of view of the wearer when the indicated front or rear side
of the wrist of the wearer faces the wearer; and
when it is determined that the display of the wearable
electronic device is not in a field of view of the wearer of the
wearable electronic device, causing the display to enter a
standby mode; and
when it is determined that the display of the wearable
electronic device is in a field of the view of the wearer of the
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

4
wearable electronic device, displaying a user interface on the
display of the wearable electronic device, wherein the user
interface is displayed in a first orientation based, at least in part,
on the determined orientation of the wearable electronic device.

21. The method of claim 1, wherein the touch input is
provided by a finger contacting the wearable electronic device,
the direction from which the touch input is provided being
based on at least one of: a shape of a contact area between the
finger and the wearable electronic device, an angle of the finger
relative to the wearable electronic device, a capacitance of the
finger, and fingerprint information.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Tran US 2013/0172691 A1 July 4, 2013
Winkler US 2013/0222270 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
Mistry US 2014/0143785 A1 May 22, 2014
Major US 2015/0138099 A1 May 21, 2015
Raffa US 2015/0185874 A1 July 2, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Winkler and Major. Final Act. 3–5.
Claims 9–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Winkler, Raffa, and Tran. Final Act. 5–8.
Claims 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Winkler, Raffa, and Mistry. Final Act. 8–11.

Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

5
OPINION
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, “determining, based on only the
touch input from the at least one sensor, an orientation of the wearable
electronic device with respect to an object to which the wearable electronic
device is attached.”
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Winkler
and Major for collectively at least suggesting this recited determining step.
As shown in Winkler’s paragraph 113, Winkler teaches that the user’s touch
input, along with other information, can be used to change the presentation
of information on a display of a device. Ans. 13 (citing Winkler ¶ 113).
Winkler also teaches altering a presentation orientation of visual output.
Winkler ¶¶ 42, 43 (emphasis added). Major teaches that its mobile device,
which includes a touch sensor, can be configured to receive “orientation data
from the touch sensor.” Major ¶ 8; Ans. 14. In some embodiments, the
mobile device of Major may be “configured to change the orientation of the
view.” Major ¶ 37. “Alternatively or additionally,” Major states, “the first
view may be rotated to the second view based on orientation data received
from user inputs, such as to a touch sensor.” Id. Major also explains that
“[i]n some embodiments, some or all of the orientation data may
alternatively or additionally be determined based on user inputs, such as
touch inputs generated by touch sensor 210.” Id. ¶ 50.
Appellant argues “the Examiner appears to be conflating an
orientation of displayed content with an orientation of the physical device
itself.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that Major’s “orientation data” is not
the same type of “orientation” that is claimed, because the term “orientation”
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

6
in “Major appears to be used in the context of determining a new view to be
presented to the user for the user's movement through a virtual environment,
not in determining an orientation of the mobile electronic device with
respect to an object to which the mobile device is attached.” Appeal Br. 9.
Although Appellant posits that Major’s “orientation data” is strictly
limited to only orientation “as viewed” by a player or participant within a
virtual environment, we disagree that Major’s teachings are so limited.
Major does not limit its discussion of “orientation data” in this way, nor does
Appellant identify any such disclaimer or explicit limitation of the
“orientation data” in Major. Appellant’s arguments regarding Major’s
alleged shortcomings in this regard (Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 5–6) are,
therefore, unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim that
does not preclude Major’s relied-upon functionality.
Claim 1 additionally recites “receiving touch input from a user via at
least one sensor coupled to the wearable electronic device, the at least one
sensor comprising a touch sensor, the touch input received by the touch
sensor indicating a direction from which the input is provided to the user
interface.” Claims App’x (emphasis added).
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Winkler
and Major for collectively at least suggesting this recited receiving step.
Major teaches, in part, “in response to the user touching a swiping leftwards
on a left portion of the graphical interface or view, the view of the virtual
environment may be rotated a variable amount to the left, such as by an
amount that depends on the location, speed and/or duration of the touch or
swipe as indicated by the orientation data.” Major ¶ 103; Ans. 16. As the
Examiner explains, “Major detects a touch input that swipes RIGHT to
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

7
LEFT, which necessarily contains the information that the input was
provided from the RIGHT direction.” Ans. 16. Although Appellant directs
us to paragraph 32 of Appellant’s Specification (Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 7)
to give an example of how to identify the direction from which the input is
provided, the claim does not limit how such input is provided. Appellant’s
arguments regarding Major’s alleged shortcomings in this regard (Appeal
Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 8) are, therefore, unavailing and not commensurate
with the scope of the claim that does not preclude Major’s relied-upon
functionality.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–8 not argued separately with particularity.

Dependent Claim 21
Dependent claim 21 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the
touch input is provided by a finger contacting the wearable electronic
device, the direction from which the touch input is provided being based on
at least one of: a shape of a contact area between the finger and the wearable
electronic device, an angle of the finger relative to the wearable electronic
device, a capacitance of the finger, and fingerprint information.” Claims
App., emphasis added.
As the Examiner explains, “Major detects a touch input that swipes
RIGHT to LEFT, which necessarily contains the information that the input
was provided from the RIGHT direction.” Ans. 18 (citing Major ¶ 103). In
particular, Major teaches that “in response to the user touching a swiping
leftwards on a left portion of the graphical interface or view, the view of the
virtual environment may be rotated a variable amount to the left, such as by
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

8
an amount that depends on the location, speed and/or duration of the touch
or swipe as indicated by the orientation data.” Major ¶ 103. As the Examiner
explains, a swipe input from right to left, as shown in Major, contains the
shape of the contact area that touches the display. Ans. 18. Although Major
does not state explicitly that the direction of the leftwards swipe is based on
a shape of a contact area between the finger and the wearable electronic
device, we nonetheless see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Winkler
and Major for collectively at least suggesting this feature, particularly given
Major’s teaching of using the location, speed, or duration of the touch or
swipe in a leftwards direction, as disclosed by Major in paragraph 103.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 21.

Independent Claim 9
Claim 9 recites, in part, “A method for presenting a user interface on a
wearable electronic device, the method comprising: receiving input from a
first sensor coupled to the wearable electronic device, the first sensor being
configured to determine a direction of blood flow of the user.” Claims App.
(emphasis added).
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Winkler,
Raffa, and Tran for collectively at least suggesting the claimed first sensor
being configured to determine a direction of blood flow of the user. As
explained in paragraph 234 of Tran:
The magnet provides a magnetic field, and one or more
electrodes similar to electrode 1383 are positioned on the wrist
band to measure voltage drops which are proportional to the
blood velocity. The electromagnetic embodiment may be
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

9
mounted on the upper arm of the patient, on the ankle or on the
neck where peripheral blood vessels pass through and their
blood velocity may be measured with minimal interruptions.
The flexible magnet produces a pseudo-uniform (non-gradient)
magnetic field. The magnetic field can be normal to the
blood flow direction when wrist band 1374 is mounted on
the user's wrist or may be a rotative pseudo-uniform
magnetic field so that the magnetic field is in a transversal
direction in respect to the blood flow direction . . . .

Tran ¶ 234. As the Examiner explains, according to paragraph 234, Tran’s
system is at the very least aware of the connection between the direction of
the magnet’s magnetic field and the blood flow direction. Ans. 19.
“[V]elocity is detected by a voltage. Velocity has direction as well as
magnitude and voltage can be both raised and lowered to determine the
direction of the blood flow.” Id.
Appellant argues that Tran merely discloses the orientation of the
magnetic field relative to the blood flow direction, meaning that the
direction of blood flow has already been determined. Appeal Br. 13–14;
Reply Br. 9–10.
We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Tran for at least
suggesting “the first sensor being configured to determine a direction of
blood flow of the user.” Appellant provides insufficient evidence proving
that the Specification or claims limit the “first sensor” in a way that, under a
broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Tran’s teachings
of the electromagnetic embodiment in paragraph 234. The electromagnetic
functionality of Tran’s system at least suggests the recited first sensor being
configured to determine a direction of blood flow of the user because it
determines blood velocity, which has direction.
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

10
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 9, and claims 10–15 not argued separately with
particularity.

Independent Claim 16
Claim 16 recites, in part, “A device comprising: a first sensor, the first
sensor being configured to detect a styloid.” We note that the disputed
“styloid” recited in the first line of claim 16 is not again referenced in claim
16.
The Examiner determines that the claimed “styloid” is
“comprehensive enough to be read on by a stylus” as taught by Mistry
because a stylus is a type of styloid. Ans. 20.
On this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion. Appellant provides insufficient evidence proving that the
Specification or claims limit “styloid” in a way that, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Mistry’s teachings of a
stylus. Although Appellant points to paragraph 26 of the Specification as
referencing a “styloid” in the “wrist” of an individual (Appeal Br. 16),
Appellant also acknowledges that paragraph 64 of the Specification refers to
a “stylus” (Reply Br. 11). Indeed, paragraph 64 of the Specification notes
that an “input device 1035” of a wearable electronic device 1000 may
include a “stylus.” Spec. ¶ 64; Fig. 10. Appellant attempts to distinguish the
“stylus” from the “styloid” recited in the claim because paragraph 64 in
Appellant’s Specification “does not correlate input via the stylus pen with an
orientation of the wearable electronic device.” Reply Br. 11. Yet,
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are not
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

11
commensurate with the scope of the claim, which, as discussed above, does
not reference the “styloid” again in claim 16, let alone recite the “styloid” as
being used to correlating input.
Appellant similarly argues that the “Examiner has not indicated how
the detection of an input from a stylus pen, such as taught by Mistry, would
enable the sensor which detects such input to indicate whether a display of
the device is located on a front side or a rear side of a wrist of a wearer of
the wearable electronic device.” Appeal Br. 17. This argument, however, is
not commensurate in scope with claim 16, which does not recite that the
styloid does anything, let alone that it is used to “enable the sensor” in this
way.
We also note that the Examiner has pointed out that:
In the Response After Final of 1/3/2020, Applicant proposed to amend
the claim language to "the first sensor being configured to detect a
styloid of a wearer's wrist," however, that amendment was not
admitted as noted in the Advisory Action of 1/31/2020. An
amendment such as that would make the claim clear on the record and
would overcome Mystry. However, a new search would need to be
conducted.
Ans. 20.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 16, and claims 17–20 not argued separately with
particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
In particular, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–8 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler and Major.
Appeal 2020-006077
Application 15/114,860

12
We affirm the rejection of claims 9–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Winkler, Raffa, and Tran.
We affirm the rejection of claims 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler, Raffa, and Mistry.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 21 103 Winkler, Major 1–8, 21
9–15 103 Winkler, Raffa,
Tran
9–15
16–20 103 Winkler, Raffa,
Mistry
16–20
Overall
Outcome
1–21

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED