Ex Parte Eggen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 22, 2011

10127453 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOSEPHUS HUBERTUS EGGEN,
ELISE ANNA WALTHERA HENDRINA VAN DEN HOVEN,
EVERT JAN VAN LOENEN, and ESKO OLAVI DIJK
____________

Appeal 2009-008410
Application 10/127,453
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 13-27. Claims 1-12 have been canceled. App. Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008410
Application 10/127,453

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a device and method for detecting an
object (e.g., a bottle, pen, souvenir), detecting the identity of the object, and
associating control options with the identity. See Spec. 1:21-2:3. Claim 13
is reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
13. An electronic device for accessing stored data in accordance
with an identified object, the device comprising:
a user profile apparatus for identifying a user of the device and
maintaining a user profile;
a detection unit for visually detecting and identifying an object;
and
a controller for loading stored data in accordance with the
identified object and the user profile of the identified user.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Hoguta US 6,725,303 B1 Apr. 20, 2004
(filed Aug. 31, 2000)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 13-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Hoguta. Ans. 3-4.2

THE CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative independent claim 13, the Examiner finds
that Hoguta discloses all recited limitations, including mapping column two,
lines nine through twenty-one to the recited controller that loads stored data
based on identified object and the user profile of the identified user. See

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February
13, 2007; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 19, 2007; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed August 9, 2007.
Appeal 2009-008410
Application 10/127,453

3
Ans. 3. Appellants argue that Hoguta fails to disclose the limitations of
claim 13. App. Br. 4. Appellants specifically assert that Hoguta loads data
based on a user’s identification, and not based on both a user profile and the
detected object. App. Br. 5-6.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 by finding
that Hoguta discloses a controller for loading stored data in accordance with
the identified object and the user profile of the identified user?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants provide examples of an object, including a bottle, a
pen, a souvenir, a toy, or anything that moves freely. Spec. 1:28-2:12.
2. Appellants’ disclosure describes a person recognition means as a
“means which enables the apparatus to determine which person puts the
object in place, and subsequently control[s] the apparatus in accordance with
the control options associated with that particular person.” Spec. 2:15-17.
3. Hoguta’s communication system 100 has a network customizing
device 122 and terminals 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120 that
allow a subscriber to connect to the network and to access information. The
network customizing device 122 provides the terminals with customized
access to network 101 and server/storage device 126. Hoguta, col. 2, ll. 9-
13; col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 5; col. 6, ll. 59-61; Fig. 1.

Appeal 2009-008410
Application 10/127,453

4
4. Hoguta teaches that a subscriber can configure a terminal (e.g.,
106) using the subscriber’s stored profile. Configuration begins by entering
a subscriber’s ID information into the terminal or through a reader which
identifies the subscriber. For example, the subscriber ID information may be
entered by swiping a smart card or magnetic strip card through a reader,
scanning a fingerprint or eye retina, and using other personal identification
recognition reader device coupled to the subscriber’s terminal. Hoguta, col.
3, ll. 32-45; col. 7, ll. 1-9; Fig. 1.
5. Hoguta’s network customizing device (e.g., 122) accesses a
subscriber profile (e.g., database 300 stores subscriber profile information)
using the subscriber ID information together with any other personal
information inputted by the subscriber to set up subscriber’s terminal
preferences. Hoguta, col. 2, ll. 23-59; col. 7, ll. 9-13; col. 12, ll. 48-50; Figs.
1, 3.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 13. At the outset,
Appellants argue that Hoguta does not disclose a user profile apparatus, a
detection unit, and a controller. App. Br. 4. However, mere arguments
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Nonetheless, Hoguta
disclose each of these limitations.
As Appellants admit (App. Br. 5), Hoguta teaches a detection unit that
visually detects a fingerprint or retinal pattern (FF 4) to identify the user.
Because Appellants only provide examples of “an object” and do not define
Appeal 2009-008410
Application 10/127,453

5
this term (see FF 1), we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5) that such a term
can be reasonably construed more broadly, and can include both human and
non-human objects. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, despite
Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 2), Hoguta’s detection unit visually
detects and identifies an object other than the user. That is, Hoguta’s
scanner, as well as any fingerprint or eye retina scanner, actually detects and
identifies a fingerprint or retinal pattern (e.g., an object), and not just the
user’s physical fingerprint or retina. Hoguta also discloses other detection
devices, such as card readers, that detect and identify an object (e.g., a
swiped smart card or magnetic strip) (see FF 4) that are separate from the
user.
Additionally, Hoguta discloses a user profile apparatus for identifying
a device’s user and maintains a user profile. See FF 3-5. The Specification
provides little guidance about what structure or mechanism reads on the
recited “user profile apparatus.” See FF 2. At best, the disclosure describes
a general mechanism for determining the device’s user. See id. Thus, given
the breadth of the recited “user profile apparatus,” any structure or
mechanism that enables Hoguta’s system to determine the device’s user is a
broad, but reasonable mapping to the recited user profile apparatus. See Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech, 367 F.3d at 1364.
Hoguta discloses such a user profile apparatus. Hoguta explains that
the detected object (e.g., the fingerprint pattern or a card) is used by a
customizing device (e.g., 122) to identify a user through its terminal and
maintains a user profile (e.g., a subscriber profile). See FF 3-5. In
particular, upon detecting an object (e.g., a fingerprint pattern or a card), the
Appeal 2009-008410
Application 10/127,453

6
customizing device can identify a subscriber through subscriber ID
information and other information to customize the subscriber’s terminal
using the subscriber’s stored profile. See FF 4-5. Hoguta therefore also
discloses a user profile apparatus for identifying a device’s user (e.g., a
subscriber) and maintains a user profile (e.g., a subscriber’s profile) as
recited in claim 13.
Appellants’ main contention, however, is that Hoguta’s controller
only loads data based on the user’s profile, and not both the user’s profile
and an identified object as claimed. App. Br. 5-6. We disagree. As
explained above, the subscriber’s or user’s profile is only obtained by first
detecting and identifying an object (e.g., a fingerprint pattern, a retinal
pattern, or a card). See FF 4. Thus, when setting up the subscriber’s
terminal based on the subscriber profile using a subscriber ID (see FF 5), the
controller is loading stored data in accordance not only with the user profile,
but also the originally detected object (see FF 3-4). That is, but for the
detected object, the user profile would not be obtained and the stored data
would not be loaded. We therefore find that Hoguta discloses a controller
for loading stored data in accordance with the identified object and the user
profile of the identified user as recited in claim 13.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the anticipation rejection of: (1) independent claim 13; (2)
similarly-argued independent claims 18 and 23 which are commensurate in
scope with claim 13 (see App. Br. 6-7); and (3) dependent claims 14-17, 19-
22, and 24-27 not separately argued with particularity (see App. Br. 4-7).

Appeal 2009-008410
Application 10/127,453

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13-27 under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-27 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510