Ex Parte Alameh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

14721647 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/721,647 05/26/2015
138908 7590 09/19/2018
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.
MM01279 8857
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, CAROLYN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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 and KEVIN J. McDUNN
Appeal2018-001894
Application 14/721,64 71
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-18. Claims 19 and 20 have been allowed. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Motorola Mobility LLC as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001894
Application 14/721, 64 7
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a portable electronic device having at least
two proximity sensors pointing in different directions around the perimeter
of the device. Spec. ,r 3 7. The proximity sensors sense in different
directions, and determines whether a person is within a thermal reception
radius. When signals are received only from one direction, it is indicative of
the user (a first person) of the device being alone, and the device operates in
a first mode (e.g., a non-privacy mode). Spec. ,r 39. When the proximity
sensors detect the presence of a second person by receiving signals from a
different directions, mode switching functionality activates to switch the
device into a second mode, such as a privacy mode. Spec. ,r 38-39, 44.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a housing;
one or more processors;
a plurality of proximity sensor components operable with
the one or more processors, each proximity sensor component:
comprising an infrared signal receiver to receive an
infrared emission from an object external to the housing;
and
disposed about a perimeter of the housing with at
least a first proximity sensor component defining at least
a first reception beam oriented at least partially in a first
direction from the housing and at least a second proximity
sensor component defining at least a second reception
beam oriented at least partially in a second direction
relative to the housing, the second direction different from
the first direction;
the one or more processors operable to:
detect, with the at least a first proximity sensor
component, a person is within a thermal reception radius
of the electronic device along the first direction; and
2
Appeal2018-001894
Application 14/721, 64 7
determine, with the at least a second proximity
sensor component, whether another person is within the
thermal reception radius of the electronic device along the
second direction; and
where only the person is within the thermal reception
radius, operate the electronic device in a first mode of
operation; and
where the person and the another person are within the
thermal reception radius, operate the electronic device in
a second mode of operation.
App. Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Joo et al. ("Joo") US 2015/0003691 Al Jan. 1, 2015
Alameh et al. ("Alameh") US 2015/0347732 Al Dec. 3, 2015
REJECTION
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Alameh and Joo. Final Act. 4--9.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Alameh and Joo
teaches or suggests "determine, with the least a second proximity sensor
component, whether another person is within the thermal reception radius of
the electronic device along a second direction," as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2018-001894
Application 14/721, 64 7
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on Alameh, finding
that Alameh teaches all of the claim limitations up to the "determine" step.
Final Act. 5-6. For the "determine" step and the subsequent limitations, the
Examiner relies on Joo, finding that Joo teaches these limitations because it
describes detecting the presence of a second person and changing the mode
of operation to a lock screen in response to that detection. Final Act. 6-7
(citing Joo Figs. 2, 3; ,r,r 9, 37, and 62-64). The Examiner concludes a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine
the pertinent teaches of the references "in order to give access to private
information to only registered users of the device." Final Act. 7 (citing Joo
Appellants contend the Examiner has erred because neither of the
references teach the limitation "determine, with the least a second proximity
sensor component, whether another person is within the thermal reception
radius of the electronic device along a second direction." App. Br. 13-18.
More specifically, Appellants argue neither Alameh nor Joo "teaches a
bifurcation of proximity sensors by the direction from which those proximity
sensors receive signals to detect a number of persons within a thermal
detection radius. Nor does either reference teach making operating mode
decisions as a function of received signal direction." App. Br. 13. We agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has erred.
Alameh is directed to "an electronic device [that] selects, based on the
detected position of a user, which sensor it will use to authenticate the user."
Alameh ,r 11. The electronic device includes motion sensors set around the
perimeter of the device which detect the position of a user. Alameh ,r 14.
4
Appeal2018-001894
Application 14/721, 64 7
Based on the detected position of the user, a specific biometric sensor is
selected to authenticate the user in a first authentication mode. Alameh ,r 18.
For example, if the user is detected in a position that is relatively distant
from the device, which precludes effective image recognition, a sound
sensor is selected to authenticate the user, and it may provide a limited
degree of access. Alameh ,r 20. When the user moves closer to the device,
and one of the motion sensors detects the person close enough to allow for
image recognition, the device may select an image sensor to perform the
authentication, and allow for access to more robust functionality of the
device. Alameh ,r 21. Thus, what Alameh describes is tracking the position
of a single user, and then determining an appropriate mode of authentication
based on their relative proximity to the device.
Joo describes a mobile device which authenticates using iris
recognition and is equipped with a proximity sensor to detect the presence of
additional users around the phone. Joo ,r 35. When a first person uses the
mobile device, the proximity sensor remains active so that it can detect an
additional person standing behind the user. Id. When a second person is
detected, the mobile device performs iris recognition on the second person to
determine whether they are an authorized user of the mobile device----e.g., a
user having a secondary account on the device. If not, then a lock screen is
presented to the current user so as to prevent the unauthorized user from
being able to surreptitiously gather personal information from the mobile
device screen. Joo ,r 38.
We agree with Appellants that neither reference, alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests selecting a mode of operation based on
detecting different persons using proximity sensors oriented in different
5
Appeal2018-001894
Application 14/721, 64 7
directions with respect to the housing of the device. Claim 1 recites that the
proximity sensors are directed in first and second directions with "the second
direction different from the first direction." Although Alameh teaches
sensors which point in different directions, it does so only for the purpose of
determining the proximity of the user to the device to determine the
appropriate biometric identification ( e.g., sound, facial, iris) to use. Alameh
,r 21. And while Joo teaches identifying multiple persons using a proximity
sensor, it does so only as a precursor to an iris identification that determines
how and whether to adjust an operating mode. Joo ,r 38. Even taking these
teachings together, we do not discern, nor has the Examiner sufficiently
explained, why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine these
disclosures in such a way that the multiple proximity sensor units taught by
Alameh would "where the person and the another person are within the
thermal reception radius, operate the electronic device in a second mode of
operation." Rather, it seems to us that the teachings of Joo would, at most,
prompt an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify Alameh to perform an iris
recognition scan on a second person to detected by Alameh's sensors when
they are standing in the same direction (i.e., behind) the user to prevent
surreptitious viewing of the screen, and not in a "different direction" as
required by the claim. Put another way, the Examiner's reason for
combining the references (see Final Act. 7) lacks a rational underpinning
because, as explained above, detecting persons in different directions is not
suggested in the cited prior art, and the Examiner has not explained how or
why a desire to give access to only registered users of the device would
result in detecting persons in different directions. Accordingly, we are
persuaded the Examiner has not shown the claims to be obvious over
6
Appeal2018-001894
Application 14/721, 64 7
Alameh and Joo, and we reverse the rejection of claim 1, and also of claim
12 which recites similar limitations. For the same reasons, we also reverse
the rejections of claims 2-11 and 13-18 which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18.
REVERSED
7