Ex Parte Alameh et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 13, 201814595258 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation