Ex Parte Goggin et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 1, 201211836793 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 1, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation