Ex Parte Arrasvuori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

11828820 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017)

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.
11/828,820 07/26/2007 Juha Henrik ARRASVUORI P2281US00 1008
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
06/01/2017 EXAMINER
TRAN, TUYETLIEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2017 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUHA HENRIK ARRASVUORI and
PETRI MATTI OLAVI PIIPPO1
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims relating to
method of triggering an event based on the movement pattern of a wireless
communication device, which have been rejected as anticipated or obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Nokia Corporation.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses what is said to be “a more-intuitive system
and/or method for activating various operations within a WCD [wireless
communication device].” (Spec. 17.) Specifically,
sensors incorporated within a device may be utilized to
determine the orientation and/or position of a WCD during a
series of motions forming a pattern. Certain recognized patterns
performed by a user may initiate events within the device, such
as activating a scan mode, initiating communication with another
device, accepting information etc.
{Id. 1 8.)
Claims 1—30, 35, and 36 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 35 are
illustrative and read as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising:
storing movement pattern information in a wireless
communication device, the wireless communication device
including one or more movement sensors;
receiving information from the one or more movement
sensors;
comparing the sensor information to the movement
pattern information; and
triggering a predetermined event associated with
establishing or denying communications between another
wireless communication device of at least one user group and
the wireless communication device based on whether the sensor
information is associated with the movement pattern
information.
35. A server, comprising
at least one processor;
at least one communication module; and
2
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
at least one memory module including one or more
databases;
the at least one processor being coupled to the at least
one communication module and the at least one memory
module and further being configured to:
store user group information in the one or more
databases, the user group information including at least user
profile information and movement pattern information;
receive a request for registration to a group service from
a wireless communication device; and
send at least part of the user group information to the
wireless communication device.
This application was the subject of Appeal 2012-002671, and the prior
art rejections of the claims then pending were reversed. After the
application was returned to the examining corps, the Examiner entered new
rejections and Appellants added the claim language highlighted above in
claim 1. The Examiner maintained the rejections, and this appeal followed.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 6—10, 14, 19—23, 27, 28, 30, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Marvit2 or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious based on Marvit and Ashman3 (Ans. 2);
Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Rosenberg4
and Marvit (Ans. 7);
2 Marvit et al., US 2005/0212758 Al, Sept. 29, 2005.
3 Ashman, Jr. et al., US 2006/0052109, Mar. 9, 2006.
4 Rosenberg, US 2007/0273583 Al, Nov. 29, 2007.
3
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
Claims 2—5, 15—18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based
on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Albertson5 (Ans. 9);
Claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on
Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Gupta6 (Ans. 11); and
Claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based
on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Rosenberg (Ans. 11).
I
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6—10, 14, 19—23, 27, 28, 30, and
36 as anticipated by Marvit.7 The Examiner finds that Marvit teaches a
method that meets all of the limitations of claim 1, including triggering a
predetermined event associated with establishing or denying
communications with another wireless communication device of at least one
user group. (Ans. 2-4.)
We agree with the Examiner that Marvit anticipates claim 1. Marvit
discloses a handheld device such as a mobile phone, where the device “can
recognize movement of the device and can perform various functions
corresponding to such movement. Thus, movement of the device operates as
a form of input for the device.” (Marvit 134.)
The device includes a motion detector that includes accelerometers,
among other things, that detect movement of the device. (Id. H 42-43.)
The data from the motion detector “is processed at the handheld device.
Particular databases, such as gesture and gesture mapping databases, may be
5 Albertson et al., US 2008/0170776 Al, July 17, 2008.
6 Gupta et al., US 2006/0092890 Al, May 4, 2006.
7 Because we conclude that Marvit anticipates claim 1, we need not reach
the alternative basis for the rejection under § 103(a).
4
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
accessed to determine a matching gesture and intended function based on
motion.” (Id. 1122.)
Marvit states that “users may move handheld devices according to
particular gestures to cause the devices to perform desired functions,
operations or tasks.” (Id. 1134.) “For example, if handheld device 10
comprised a cellular phone, a user may move device 10 in the form of heart
250 to call the user’s girlfriend, boyfriend or spouse or house 252 to call the
user’s home.” (Id. 1135.)
We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure describes “triggering
a predetermined event associated with establishing or denying
communications between another wireless communication device of at least
one user group and the wireless communication device based on whether the
sensor information is associated with the movement pattern information,” as
recited in claim 1. More specifically, a boyfriend or girlfriend is reasonably
interpreted to be a member of the user group “friends” and a spouse is
reasonably interpreted to be a member of the user group “family,” both of
which may contain more than one member. (See Ans. 4.)
Appellants argue, however, that “Marvit’s girlfriend, boyfriend,
spouse and/or house are not generally considered persons for whom you
communicate with as a part of a user group, rather they are persons/places a
person communicates with individually.” (Appeal Br. 10.) Appellants argue
that “should the Examiner, assume the ‘user group’ is inherent to whatever
user a call is sent to, then there would be no reason to include the recitation
of ‘at least one user group’ as the recitation would not further limit the scope
of the claim.” (Id. at 11.)
5
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants do not point to
any limiting definition of “user group” provided in their Specification. With
reference to defining patterns, the Specification states that “[a]n online
community, or user group, may define public patterns recognized by all
members of the group. These patterns may be used for social interaction,
such as for initiating contact with, or accepting communication from,
another member of the user group.” (Spec. 19.) The Specification,
however, does not limit a “user group” to an online community, nor does
claim 1 limit the movement pattern information stored and compared in the
claimed method to patterns that are defined by an online community, or that
are shared by members of an online community.
We therefore agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a “wireless communication device of at least one user
group” includes the cell phone of a person within a group that is relevant to
the user of a wireless communication device, such as friends or family
members of the person using the device. Claim 1, therefore, reads on
Marvif s disclosure of using movement of a mobile phone to call a
boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants rely on the same argument with respect to the other claims
subject to this rejection. (Appeal Br. 11—12.) We therefore affirm the
rejection of claims 6—10, 14, 19—23, 27, 28, 30, and 36 for the same reasons
discussed above.
II
The Examiner has rejected claim 35 as obvious based on Rosenberg
and Marvit. (Ans. 7.) The Examiner finds that Rosenberg teaches a server
6
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
comprising a communication module, a memory module including a
database, and a processor coupled to the communication module and
memory module. (Id.) The Examiner also finds that Rosenberg’s processor
is configured to store user group information including user profile
information, receive a request for registration to a group service, and send
user group information to a wireless communication device. (Id. at 7—8.)
We agree with the Examiner that the server of claim 35 would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on Rosenberg and
Marvit. Marvit is discussed above. Rosenberg discloses a system allowing
the user of a portable computing device such as a cell phone (Rosenberg 116)
to initiate communication with the user of another cell phone by pointing his
cell phone in the direction of the second user’s cell phone (id. 1 5). Rosenberg
discloses that a “person-to-person communication application (‘PPCA’)”
enables the pointing-based person-to-person communication. (Id. 118.)
Rosenberg discloses that “[t]he PPCA application running upon each
portable computing device may also be operative to store and selectively
access a unique personal profile for the current user of that portable
computing device.” (Id. 121.) “The PPCA application may also be operative
to store information about each user’s friends and/or business associates in
their social network.” (Id.) “Personal profile information and/or personal
security and/or privacy parameters may be stored in some embodiments on a
remote server that is accessible by the portable computing devices.” (Id.)
Rosenberg discloses that the server determines whether one user is
authorized to access information about another user and, “[i]f the targeting
user had requested information about a targeted user and is determined to have
access to that information, the information is transmitted by the PPCA server
7
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
to the portable computing device of the targeting user.” (Id. 134.) Rosenberg
states that its system “facilitates business and/or social networking activities
by and among portable computing device users. In one embodiment, portable
computing device users use a Web browser (on a computer or the portable
device itself) to register online.” (Id. 123.)
Thus, Rosenberg’s server is capable of storing data, accessing the data,
and communicating the data to a wireless communication device. The server
therefore includes a processor coupled to a communication module and to a
memory module, as recited in claim 35. In Rosenberg’s system, each wireless
communication device can store both a personal profile for the current user
and information about each user’s friends and business associates. And
Rosenberg states that its server can store personal profile information,
personal security, or personal parameters. Thus, it would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan to include a user’s information about friends and business
associates among the personal profile information stored on the remote server.
The Examiner acknowledges that Rosenberg does not disclose storing
movement pattern information on its server, but finds that Marvit discloses a
gesture database stored in memory and states that the memory can be any
form of volatile or non-volatile memory, including a remote memory
component. (Ans. 8; see also Marvit 137.) We agree with the Examiner that
it would have been obvious to store Marvit’s gesture database on Rosenberg’s
remote server so that users of Rosenberg’s system could use Marvit’s gesture-
based method for performing functions.
With regard to the last two functions recited in claim 35, we agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 8) that Rosenberg’s system is capable of performing them.
With regard to receiving a request for a group service, Rosenberg states that
8
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
users of its system can use a Web browser on the portable device to register
for a managed service provided by a system operator. (Rosenberg 123.)
With regard to sending user group information to the portable device,
Rosenberg states that the server can include personal profile information and
access-preference information, and the system operator manages information
access between registered users (id.); thus, the server must send part of the
user group information to the portable device when it grants information
access to appropriate users.
Appellants argue that the rejection “does not account for the further
recited features of ‘store user group information in the one or more
databases, the user group information including at least user profile
information’ as claimed.” (Appeal Br. 13.) “In fact, it is clear from
Rosenberg that the personal profile is storing the user group information and
not the other way around.” (Id. at 15.) Appellants argue that “Rosenberg at
most describes some group memberships, but not information regarding
those groups which is reasonably what a ‘user group information’ would
entail. . . . Rosenberg only contemplates storing personal profile information
and does not extend that information stored to a categorization of user group
information.” (Id.)
This argument is unpersuasive because, as discussed above,
Rosenberg discloses storing both “a unique personal profile for the current
user” and “information about each user’s friends and/or business associates.”
(Rosenberg 121.) As discussed above with regard to anticipation, a user’s
friends or business associates are encompassed by the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a “user group” because they are groups that are associated
9
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
with a particular user of the wireless communication device. We therefore
affirm the rejection of claim 35 as obvious based on Marvit and Rosenberg.
Ill
The Examiner has rejected claims 2—5, 15—18, and 29 as obvious
based on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Albertson. (Ans. 9.) Claim
2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation of “receiving user group
information in the wireless communication device, the user group
information comprising the movement pattern information, the movement
pattern information being related to the at least one user group.” (Appeal Br.
25 (Claims App’x).)
The Examiner finds that “Albertson discloses triggering an event
based on whether the predicted user gesture matches a required gesture”
(Ans. 9) and concludes that the cited references would have made obvious
the method of claim 2 (id. at 10).
Appellants argue that “Albertson . . . relates to image tracking to
determine a user gesture.” (Appeal Br. 17.) Appellants point out that
Albertson’s system recognizes gestures, as a form of security access, using a
stationary image device. (Id. at 18.) Appellants argue that “the use of
gestures in calling/communication with individuals of Marvit and/or Ashman
is not the same as the use of gestures in secure access to physical resources
of Albertson” (id.), and thus Albertson fails to cure the deficiencies of
Marvit (id. at 19).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not persuasively
shown that a skilled worker would have had a reason to combine Marvit and
Albertson in the manner required by claim 2. Albertson discloses that its
invention “provides improved resource security” by using a “three-
10
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
dimensional image stream captured by one or more image capture devices”
to grant or deny access to a resource by a user, depending on whether a
predicted user gesture matches a required gesture. (Albertson | 5.)
Albertson describes the related art as pertaining to obtaining access to
resources such as an electronically controlled lock or access to a bank
account at an ATM by entering or speaking a password or by detecting a
fingerprint, voice imprint, or retinal scan. (Id. || 2—3.)
The Examiner has not provided a persuasive reason for concluding
that a skilled worker would have been led to combine Marvif s system for
operating a cell phone by waving it in particular patterns with Albertson’s
system for visually tracking a user’s gestures to determine whether to grant
access to a resource such as a bank account. We therefore reverse the
rejection of claim 2 as obvious based on Marvit and Albertson. Claim 15
includes the same relevant limitation, and claims 3—5 and 16—18 depend
from either claim 2 or claim 5. We therefore reverse the rejection of these
claims as well.
Claim 29, however, does not include a limitation like those of claims
2 and 5. Claim 29 depends from claim 27, which was rejected as anticipated
by Marvit. (Ans. 5.) As discussed above, we affirm the rejection of claim
27. Claim 29 adds the limitation that the apparatus of claim 27 “further
compris[es] at least one memory for storing the at least some group
information.” (Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App’x).)
The Examiner finds that Albertson discloses a memory for storing
group information; specifically a gesture specific to a group of users. (Ans.
10.) The Examiner also finds that Marvit teaches storing movement pattern
information in a gesture database. (Id. at 2.) Marvit discloses that its
11
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
handheld device includes a memory for storing, among other things, a
gesture database. (Marvit || 35, 37.) Marvit also discloses that “a user may
move device 10 in the form of heart 250 to call the user’s girlfriend,
boyfriend or spouse or house 252 to call the user’s home.” (Id. 1135.)
Thus, the gesture database stored in the memory of Marvit’s device includes
information about groups: the gesture of a heart is associated with the group
of romantic interests and the gesture of a house is associated with the group
of family members.
Although we conclude that Albertson’s disclosure is not necessary to
make the limitations of claim 29 obvious, we affirm the rejection of claim 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Marvit and Albertson. “It is well settled
that ‘anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.’” In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
IV
The Examiner has rejected claims 11 and 24 as obvious based on
Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Gupta. (Ans. 11.) The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to have modified the gesture
database of Marvit/Ashman to include the feature of wireless scan as taught
by Gupta in order to download the updated information.” (Id. )
We agree with the Examiner’s fact-finding, reasoning, and
conclusion.
Appellants argue that “Gupta, recited for other reasons, e.g.,
establishing network communications using a network scan, fails to cure the
deficiencies of Marvit and/or Ashman.” (Appeal Br. 20.) For the reasons
discussed above, however, we conclude that Marvit does not have any
12
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
deficiencies in anticipating claims 10 and 23, from which claims 11 and 24
respectively depend.
Because Appellants have waived any arguments based on Gupta, we
affirm the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Marvit
and Gupta. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (Appeal Brief must contain
“[t]he arguments of appellant with respect to each ground of rejection”);
Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“In the event of such
a waiver, the PTO may affirm the rejection of the group of claims that the
examiner rejected on that ground without considering the merits of those
rejections.”).
V
The Examiner has rejected claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 as obvious based
on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Rosenberg. (Ans. 11.) Because
Appellants do not argue these claims separately, we select claim 12 as
representative. Claim 12 is directed to “[t]he method of claim 1, further
comprising receiving acknowledgement information from a second wireless
communication device.” (Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App’x).)
The Examiner finds that “Rosenberg teaches receiving
acknowledgement information from a second wireless communication
device (e.g., see [0037]; the second user explicitly authorizing information
access and/or communication initiation . . .).” (Ans. 12.) The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Marvit’s system to
include Rosenberg’s acknowledgement feature to allow a user of a wireless
communication device to more easily initiate communication with another
user. (Id.)
13
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
We agree with that the method of claim 12 would have been obvious
based on the cited references. Rosenberg discloses an operation for users of
portable computing devices to initiate contact with each other. (Rosenberg
137.) Specifically, the device of a first user determines “whether the first
user is authorized to access information about the second user and/or
whether the first user is authorized to initiate communication with the
second user.” {Id.) The factors used to make that determination include
personal profile information, etc. (Id.) “Other of the factors may also
include the second user explicitly authorizing information access and/or
communication initiation by responding in real-time to a prompt displayed
upon his or her portable computing device.” (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
include this feature in Marvif s system in order to allow a caller to know
whether the person called has authorized communication initiation. (In the
non-patent context, this is known as answering the phone.)
Appellants argue that Rosenberg does not remedy the deficiencies of
Marvit. (Appeal Br. 22.) For the reasons discussed above, however, we
conclude that Marvit discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore
does not have any deficiencies in that respect that require remedying.
Appellants also argue that “it is not clear how Rosenberg would be
combined with Marvit and/or Ashman, as Rosenberg clearly is directed to
pointing directly at another user to establish communication, so an
acknowledgement is necessary, however, Marvit and/or Ashman fails to
even contemplate communication establishment.” (Id.)
This argument is also unpersuasive, because both Marvit and
Rosenberg disclose communication between the wireless communication
14
Appeal 2016-004761
Application 11/828,820
devices of different users, and the advantage of Rosenberg’s
acknowledgement feature for Marvit’s system—letting the caller know their
call has been answered—would be apparent to any person of ordinary skill
in the art.
Claims 13, 25, and 26 fall with claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6—10, 14, 19—23, 27, 28, 30, and
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Marvit.
We affirm the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious based on Rosenberg and Marvit.
We reverse the rejection of claims 2—5 and 15—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and Albertson.
We affirm the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious based on Marvit and Albertson.
We affirm the rejection of claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious based on Marvit and Gupta.
We affirm the rejection of claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and Rosenberg.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15