Ex Parte Goggin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 1, 2012

11836793 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 1, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TERENCE GOGGIN and MARK GOGGIN
____________________

Appeal 2010-003004
Application 11/836,793
Technology Center 2600

Before: LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and THU A.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003004
Application 11/836,793
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-18. The Appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
INVENTION

The Appellants describe the invention at issue on appeal as
"effect[ing] application behavior by interpreting sudden motion sensor data
as input device . . . input data." (Spec. 15.) Claim 1, which follows, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
reading sudden motion sensor data during tilting of a
device;
interpreting the read data as input device input for an
application that requires input from the input device; and
adjusting application behavior based on the interpreted
data.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Back US 2004/0119684 A1 Jun. 24, 2004

Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-12, 14, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§102(e) as being anticipated by Back.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Back.

Appeal 2010-003004
Application 11/836,793
3
DISCUSSION
Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1-18 on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).1
Therefore, the issue before us follows.
Did the Examiner err in finding that Back interprets data that have
been read from at least one sudden motion sensor as input device input for
an application that requires input from the input device, as required by
representative claim 1?
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim, and that
anticipation is a fact question . . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d 1bn324, 1326
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Here, Back describes its invention as follows.
A device [10] for navigating dynamically presented
information in accordance with embodiments of the present
invention includes a motion sensor system, an information
output system[,] and a processing system. The motion sensor
system monitors for at least one movement of the device, the
information output system dynamically presents at least one
portion of information at an output portion of the device, and
the processing system adjusts the dynamic presentation based
upon the monitored movement.
(¶ 0004.)
The Examiner's finding that "the tilting/motion of the Back et al
device 10 can be an input means to an application" (Ans. 8) is uncontested.
The reference supports this finding by explaining that Black "determines

1 Rather than arguing the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, 13, 16, and
17 separately, the Appellants rely on their arguments against the anticipation
rejection.
Appeal 2010-003004
Application 11/836,793
4
whether the user is generating any input by moving or tilting device 10 to
change its orientation." (¶ 0034.) More specifically, the moving or tilting is
detected by "motion sensors 12(1)-12(2) each generat[ing] and provid[ing]
duty cycle modulated ('DCM') digital signals to processor 14 that are
representative of the orientation of the device 10 . . . ." (¶ 0014.) We find
that the reference's DCM digital signals constitute the claimed data that have
been read from at least one sudden motion sensor.
"Moreover, device 10 determines what type of navigation input the
user is attempting to express for navigating through the dynamic text being
displayed in the text window 72 based upon the stored programming it is
executing . . . ." (¶ 0034.) We find that Black's use of a program to interpret
sensor data constitutes the claimed interpreting read data as input device
input for an application that requires input from the input device. More
specifically, the motion sensors 12(1)-12(2) constitute input devices, and the
tilting or moving of the entire device 10 constitutes input to these input
devices.
"During prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their 'broadest
reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
"Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, the Appellants argue concepts omitted from claim 1, e.g., "an
application receives output of a tilting mechanism thinking it is output of a
keyboard" (Ans. 8) and an "application that is reliant on a keyboard or other
input device that is 'tricked' into accepting input from a sudden motion
sensor." (Id.) We also agree with the Examiner that "the claims do not
Appeal 2010-003004
Application 11/836,793
5
require that the application can interpret input data from a more traditional
input means as well as the SMS data." (App. Br. 8.) We will not read these
limitations into the representative claim. Because the Appellants' arguments
are based on unclaimed concepts, the arguments are unpersuasive
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Back interprets data that have been read from at least one sudden motion
sensor as input device input for an application that requires input from the
input device, as required by representative claim 1.

DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claim 1 and those of claims 2-18, which
fall therewith.

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

tkl