Ex Parte Alameh et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2019

14737969 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/737,969 06/12/2015
138908 7590 05/20/2019
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.
MM01281 7569
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ, AMANCIO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2019 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 and PAUL STEUER
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/73 7 ,969 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Motorola Mobility LLC. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/737,969
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to an electronic device that includes one or more
processors, a motion detector, a temperature sensor, and/ or one or more
proximity sensor components. The one or more processors can detect
if the electronic device is disposed within a pocket as a function of motion of
the electronic device, an absence of finger touch along a housing of the
electronic device, and an approximately common temperature occurring at
both a first end of the electronic device and a second end of the electronic
device. When the electronic device is detected in pocket, the one or more
processors can perform a control operation. Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 72, 73, Figs.
3-7, 13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal ( emphasis added):
1. A method for controlling an electronic device, comprising:
detecting, with one or more sensors, the electronic device is
disposed within a pocket as a function of at least:
motion of the electronic device;
an absence of finger touch along a housing of the
electronic device; and
an approximately common temperature occurring
at both a first location of the electronic device and a
second location of the electronic device; and
performing, by one or more processors operable with the
one or more sensors, a control operation in response to the
electronic device being disposed within the pocket.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/737,969
THE REJECTI0NS 2
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2)
as being anticipated by Noble et al. (US 9,075,435 Bl; issued July 7, 2015)
("Noble"). Non-Final Act. 3-18.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Noble in view ofForutanpour et al. (US 8,874,129
B2; issued October, 28, 2014) ("Forutanpour"). Non-Final Act. 19-21.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Noble in view of Forutanpour, as applied to claim 9, further in view of
Venkatraman et al. (US 9,497,592 B2; issued November 15, 2016)
("Venkatraman"). Non-Final Act. 22-23.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Noble in view of Forutanpour et al. (US 9,237,601 B2;
issued January 12, 2016) ("Forutanpour '601"). Non-Final Act. 23-24.
ANALYSIS
The § 102 Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding that Noble discloses the
disputed claim 1 limitation "detecting, with one or more sensors, the
electronic device is disposed within a pocket as a function of at least ... an
approximately common temperature occurring at both a first location of the
electronic device and a second location of the electronic device." App. Br.
10-13 (emphasis added). According to Appellants, Noble teaches the
opposite of the claim because Noble teaches that a device is not in the
2 The Examiner states this is a new ground of rejection in view of the Appeal
Brief filed on June 19, 2017. Non-Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/737,969
pocket when temperature at two locations is equal, and requires a
temperature differential in excess of a predefined threshold for in-pocket
detection. Id. at 11. Appellants refer to Noble's teaching of sensors on
opposite sides of the device such that, when the device is in a pocket, the
sensor facing the person will have a higher temperature than the outward
facing temperature. Id. at 11-12 (citing Noble 8:32-9:8). Appellants argue
Noble detects the in pocket condition when there is a temperature
differential that exceeds a threshold, and a low temperature differential
means the person is not close to the device. Id. at 12 (quoting Noble 8:62-
6 7, 9: 1-5 ("When the difference between the two temperatures exceeds a
threshold value, it may be assumed that the device is in close enough contact
with the user such that the user may be able to feel device vibration" and
"[ w ]hen the difference between the two temperatures is below the threshold
value, it can be assumed that the user may be too far from the device to feel
device vibration and an audio signal can be generated to inform the user of
an incoming notification" (emphasis added).)).
The Examiner finds Noble discloses the use of temperature as a factor
and refers to the same portions of Noble as Appellants. Ans. 4 (citing Noble
2:46-51, 8:53-9:5). The Examiner states:
Appellant[s] fail[] to acknowledge that Noble addresses, within
the scope of his invention, the main object of the present
application (refer to the title and abstract), mainly, detecting [that
an] electronic device is disposed within a pocket (see Noble:
[F]igs. 3A and 3B, col. 1 lines 45-48), utilizing for said purpose
the elements on which the claimed invention relies for its
purpose, e.g., detecting device's motion, finger touch, an
temperature in different locations - different locations reads on
different sections- of the device (refer to the citations shown
above).
4
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/737,969
Appellant[ s] further fail[] to acknowledge that with the broadest
reasonable interpretation given to the claim in light of the
[S]pecification, the sensing of the temperature in a least two
sections of the electronic device and using the two measured
values to determine whether the device is in a pocket of the user
is analogous to detecting that the device is not in one of the user's
pockets when there is not a differential of temperature_between
at least the two sections on the device; that is, the temperature in
both sections is relatively or approximately the same.
Id. at 5.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Noble does not meet
the requirements for anticipation of claim 1. Noble describes the use of a
temperature differential to detect in pocket location whereas the claim
recites "an approximately common temperature" ( substantially no
differential). The disputed claim 1 limitation recites "detecting, ... the
electronic device is disposed within a pocket as a function of. . . an
approximately common temperature occurring at both a first location of the
electronic device and a second location of the electronic device" ( emphasis
added). Additionally, as described in the Specification:
As used herein, an "approximately common" temperature refers
to a temperature that is within a predetermined range. Said
differently, a temperature at a first location of the electronic
device would be approximately common with a temperature at a
second location of the electronic device, in one embodiment,
when a difference between the temperatures at each end was
within plus or minus two degrees centigrade, for example.
Moreover, the term "approximately" is used to refer to an amount
that does not have to be absolute, but can include some designed
tolerance. For example, 79.378 degrees Fahrenheit or 80.125
degrees Fahrenheit could be "approximately" 80 degrees
Fahrenheit when including the tolerances of mechanical and
electrical systems and sensors. This distinguishes in-pocket
conditions from conditions in which a user is holding the device,
wherein portions of the housing adjacent to a user's hand would
5
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/737,969
be significantly warmer than other portions of the housing.
While plus or minus two degrees is one explanatory range
constituting "approximately common" temperatures, others will
be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art having the
benefit of this disclosure.
Spec. ,r 31; see also id. ,r 73.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior
art reference, and arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Our reviewing court states that "the words of a claim 'are generally given
their ordinary and customary meaning."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ( en bane) ( citations omitted). However, the
broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest possible
interpretation. In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is "an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the
specification."' Id. at 1382-83 (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Here, the Examiner's rejection is based upon an unreasonably broad
claim interpretation that interprets ''function of at least ... an approximately
common temperature occurring at both a first location of the electronic
device and a second location of the electronic device" as including Nobles's
6
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/737,969
temperature differential, and is inconsistent with the Specification, discussed
supra. Although the Specification does not explicitly define what it means
for the in-pocket detecting to be "a function of at least" motion, absence of
touch, and approximately common temperature at two locations on a device,
the Specification consistently describes detecting the device is in one's
pocket only when two locations on a device have "approximately common"
temperatures. Although one of skill in the art may have had reasons to
modify Noble to teach or suggest the disputed limitations, Noble discloses
detecting a device is in one's pocket when the temperatures at two locations
are not approximately common. Thus, Noble does not anticipate claim 1
and there is no obviousness rejection of claim 1 before us on this record.
In view of the above and based on the record before us, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2-5 and
11-13.
Independent claim 14 recites a limitation related to the disputed claim
1 limitation ("whether a temperature at both a first location of the electronic
device and a second location of the electronic device is within a predefined
range" ( emphasis added)). This limitation does not recite "an approximately
common temperature," as discussed, supra, and instead broadly recites
"within a predefined range." In other words, claim 14 does not recite any
comparison or relationship between the two locations' temperatures other
than that they both are "within a predefined range." Noble's two
temperatures, even when the difference exceeds a threshold value, are
"within a predefined range." See Noble 8:62---67. For example, both
temperatures are at least within the temperature range for which the sensors
7
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/737,969
are capable of sensing temperature. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 14, and dependent claims 15-17 and 20.
The§ 103 Rejections
In the 35 U.S.C § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 10,
18, and 19 over Noble, and the additional cited references, the Examiner
relies on Noble, without additional explanation, for teaching the disputed
limitation of claim 1 and the related limitation of independent claim 14. See
Non-Final Act. 19-24. As discussed, supra, Noble does not disclose the
disputed limitation of claim 1 and, based on the record before us, we are not
persuaded that Noble teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejections of claims 6, 7, 9, and 10.
We sustain the rejection of dependent claims 18 and 19, which depend
from independent claim 14, because Noble teaches the related limitation of
claim 14, discussed supra, and Appellants do not argue separately dependent
claims 18 and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8, and 11-
13 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(2).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14--17 and 20
under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(2).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 9, and 10
under 35 U.S.C § 103.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C § 103.
8
Appeal2018-004325
Application 14/737,969
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9