Ex Parte Alameh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 13, 2018

14595258 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/595,258 01/13/2015
138908 7590 08/13/2018
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group
(MM Files)
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rachid M. Alameh
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
MM01012 7178
EXAMINER
SHERWIN,RYANW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RACHID M. ALAMEH, PATRICK J. CAUWELS,
and PAUL STEUER
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is Motorola Mobility LLC.
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258
Appellants' invention is an electronic device with a housing and one
or more processors. At least one proximity sensor component is operable
with the one or more processors, and can include an infrared signal receiver
to receive an infrared emission from an external object. The processor(s)
can operate the proximity sensor component at a first sensitivity until the
infrared signal receiver receives the infrared emission from the object, and
subsequently operate the proximity sensor component at a second, lesser,
sensitivity. A motion detector can be actuated when the infrared signal
receiver receives the infrared signal emission from the object. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a housing;
one or more processors;
at least one proximity sensor component operable with
the one or more processors and comprising an infrared signal
receiver to receive an infrared emission from an object external
to the housing;
the one or more processors operable to:
operate the at least one proximity sensor
component at a first sensitivity until the infrared signal
receiver receives the infrared emission from the object;
transition the at least one proximity sensor
component from the first sensitivity to a second
sensitivity in response to the infrared signal receiver
receiving the infrared emission from the object; and
operate the at least one proximity sensor
component at the second sensitivity after the infrared
signal receiver receives the infrared emission from the
object;
the second sensitivity less than the first sensitivity.
2
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Sylliassen
Faddell
Choboter
Suggs
US 2002/0135474 Al
US 7,714,265 B2
US 2012/0050189 Al
US 2014/0075230 Al
Sept. 26, 2002
May 11, 2010
Mar. 1, 2012
Mar. 13, 2014
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Suggs.
Claims 4, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Suggs and Faddell.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Suggs and Choboter.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Suggs and Sylliassen.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Feb. 6, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 9,
2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 21, 2017) for their
respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does Suggs disclose or suggest transitioning the sensitivity of a
proximity sensor component from a first sensitivity to a second sensitivity in
response to the infrared signal receiver receiving an infrared emission from
an object, as required in claim 1?
2. Does Suggs disclose or suggest causing the at least one proximity
sensor component to receive the infrared emission from a second distance,
as required in claim 1 O?
3
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258
3. Does Suggs disclose or suggest transitioning an infrared signal
receiver to a second sensitivity, in response to detecting motion with the
motion detector, as required in claim 17?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A disclosure that anticipates under § 102 also renders the claim
invalid under§ 103, for anticipation is the "'epitome of obviousness."' In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (quoting In re Kalm, 378 F.2d
959, 962 (CCPA 1967)).
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-3 AND 7-9
Independent claim 1 recites "transition the at least one proximity
sensor component from the first sensitivity to a second sensitivity in
response to the infrared signal receiver receiving the infrared emission from
the object."
Appellants argue that Suggs fails to disclose the claimed transitioning
because "Suggs teaches two different devices that operate at different
sensitivities. Suggs never teaches transitioning the sensitivity of a single
sensor from one level to another." App. Br. 12.
Appellants are correct that Suggs teaches two different devices - in
one embodiment, proximity sensor 105 and intent to use sensor 106; in
another embodiment, a camera having two lenses. Suggs ,r,r 12, 15. We
nonetheless agree with the Examiner that Suggs discloses the claimed
transitioning, because the Examiner interprets "at least one proximity sensor
component" ( emphasis added) as including "the proximity sensor [ 105 and] .
4
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258
.. the intent to use sensor [106]." Ans. 3. In the camera embodiment, said
proximity sensor component would encompass the camera with two distinct
lenses.
The Examiner admits that Suggs does not disclose "transitioning the
at least one proximity sensor component from the first sensitivity to a second
sensitivity in response to the infrared signal receiver receiving the infrared
emission from the object, and the second sensitivity less than the first
sensitivity." Final Act. 4. We nevertheless find that, employing the
interpretation of "proximity sensor component" provided by the Examiner,
Suggs discloses transitioning the proximity sensor component (sensors 105
and 106, taken together) from the first sensitivity to a second sensitivity (by
using the output of intent to use sensor 106 rather than proximity sensor 105)
in response to sensor 105 receiving the infrared emission from the object
(i.e., heat from a nearby human body). Figure 2 of Suggs illustrates the use
of intent to user sensor 106 subsequent to the detection of a person within a
particular proximity. Suggs, Fig. 2, ,r 20.
We agree with the Examiner that Suggs renders obvious the invention
of claim 1 by disclosing all of its limitations. A disclosure that anticipates
under§ 102 also renders the claim invalid under§ 103, for anticipation is the
"'epitome of obviousness."' Fracalossi, 681 F.3d at 794.
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 7-9.
We sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection over Suggs.
CLAIMS 10-16
Claim 10 requires at least one proximity sensor component,
comprising an infrared signal receiver, and a motion detector. Claim 10
further requires
5
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258
upon the infrared signal receiver receiving the infrared
emission from the object, actuate the motion detector; and
upon the motion detector detecting movement of the
housing, cause the at least one proximity sensor component to
receive the infrared emission from a second distance;
the second distance less than the first distance.
Applying the interpretation of "proximity sensor component" used by
the Examiner with respect to claim 1, intent to use sensor 106 of Suggs must
correspond to the claimed motion detector. In that case, however, even if
Suggs is found to teach a motion detector detecting movement of the
housing, Suggs does not disclose or suggest causing the proximity sensor
component to receive the infrared emission from a second, shorter distance.
We find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 10, as
well as claims 11-16 dependent therefrom. We do not sustain the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 10 and 12-15 over Suggs. Because
Faddell does not remedy the deficiencies of Suggs, we also do not sustain
the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 11 and 16 over Suggs and
Faddell.
CLAIMS 17-20
Independent claim 1 7 recites, "transitioning the infrared signal
receiver to a second sensitivity." The Examiner admits that Suggs does not
explicitly disclose this feature, but nevertheless concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify Suggs to "operate the at least one proximity sensor
component at the second sensitivity ... because controlling an electronic
device based on the intent of a user may result in a better perception of a
user experience." Ans. 6-7.
6
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258
Unlike claim 1, claim 17 recites ( emphasis added), "transitioning the
infrared signal receiver," rather than "transitioning the proximity sensor
component," to a second sensitivity. We agree with Appellants that Suggs
does not disclose transitioning the sensitivity of an individual component
from a first sensitivity to a second sensitivity. Based on the record before
us, we do not agree with the Examiner that Suggs's statement that "[this]
may result in a better perception of a user experience with the electronic
device" suggests the desirability of modifying Suggs so that a particular
component's sensitivity may be transitioned. Ans. 6; Suggs ,r 9.
We find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17-20. We do not
sustain the Examiner's § 103(a) rejection.
CLAIM4
Appellants argue that Faddell does not remedy the deficiencies of
Suggs with respect to the rejection of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends.
App. Br. 18. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument for two
reasons. First, we do not agree that Suggs contains any such deficiencies.
Second, Appellants provided no argument specifically directed to the
language of dependent claim 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 4
over Suggs and Faddell, for the same reasons given with respect to the
rejection of claim 1 over Suggs alone.
CLAIMS
Claim 5, dependent from claim 1, requires transitioning sensitivity of
the at least one proximity sensor component from a first sensitivity to a
second sensitivity by reducing a gain of the infrared signal receiver.
7
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258
As we stated supra, Suggs teaches such sensitivity transition only by
choosing to take the output of a second sensor rather than a first. The
Examiner cited Choboter for its disclosure of reducing the gain of an
infrared sensor. Ans. 8. Choboter's disclosure of gain reduction fails to
remedy the absence in Suggs of any disclosure of transitioning the
sensitivity of an individual component.
We find that combination of Suggs and Choboter fails to disclose all
the elements of claim 5. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection.
CLAIM6
Claim 6, dependent from claims 1 and 3, recites transitioning the at
least one proximity sensor component from the first sensitivity to the second
sensitivity by increasing a detection threshold of the infrared signal receiver.
As we stated supra, Suggs teaches such sensitivity transition only by
choosing to take the output of a second sensor rather than a first. The
Examiner cited Sylliassen for its disclosure of increasing a detection
threshold of an infrared signal receiver. Final Act. 11. Sylliassen's
disclosure of increasing a detection threshold nonetheless fails to remedy the
absence in Suggs of any disclosure of transitioning the sensitivity of an
individual component.
We find that the combination of Suggs and Sylliassen fails to disclose
all the elements of claim 6. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection.
8
Appeal2017-010575
Application No. 14/595,258
CONCLUSION
1. Suggs discloses transitioning the sensitivity of a proximity sensor
component from a first sensitivity to a second sensitivity in response to the
infrared signal receiver receiving an infrared emission from an object, as
required in claim 1.
2. Suggs does not disclose or suggest causing the at least one
proximity sensor component to receive the infrared emission from a second
distance, as required in claim 10.
3. Suggs does not disclose or suggest transitioning an infrared signal
receiver to a second sensitivity, in response to detecting motion with the
motion detector, as claim 17 requires.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 5, 6, and 10-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9