Ex Parte Hansen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201612711052 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121711,052 02/23/2010 Cody R. Hansen 76438 7590 09/23/2016 VIV ACQUA LAW, PLLC 3101 East Eisenhower Parkway Suite 1 ANN ARBOR, MI 48108 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. P009649-NAPD-JEK 9938 EXAMINER ABEBE, SOSINA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2016 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 CODY R. HANSEN, ANDREW W. GELLATLY, and MATTHEW M. HIGHSTROM Appeal2015-007129 Application 12/711,052 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-007129 Application 12/711,052 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method of changing the state of an electronic device to a second state from a first state, the electronic device including an input portion, the method comprising the steps of: monitoring at least one sensor having a detection range at least partially disposed near the input portion; determining whether an object is within the detection range of the sensor; determining movement characteristics of the object, including at least one of an acceleration and an estimated path of the object; when the object is detected; when the object is in the detection range and not in contact with the input portion, determining if the at least one of the acceleration and the estimated path of the object puts the object on a path to contact the input device; and changing the state of the electronic device from the first state to the second state when the object is on a path to contact the input device before the object contacts the electronic device. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kerchner (US 6,559,882 Bl, May 6, 2003) in view ofNakamura (US 2006/0170658 Al, Aug. 3, 2006). Final Act. 2-5. 2 Appeal2015-007129 Application 12/711,052 Claims 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kerchner and Nakamura, further in view of A very (US 2010/0262929 Al, Oct. 14, 2010). Final Act. 5-7. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hein (US 2005/0206623 Al, Sept. 22, 2005) in view of Nakamura. Final Act. 7-9. Claims 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kerchner and Nakamura, further in view of Watterson (US 2010/0093492 Al, Apr. 15, 2010). Final Act. 9-10. Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 16, 18, and 19 as being obvious over Kerchner and Nakamura? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, and 17 as being obvious over Kerchner, Nakamura, and Avery? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 8-10 as being obvious over Hein and Nakamura? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 4, 14, and 15 as being obvious over Kerchner, Nakamura, and Watterson? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. 3 Appeal2015-007129 Application 12/711,052 Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited in the rejected claims. 1 Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. The Examiner has provided on pages 3 through 8 of the Answer a comprehensive response to each argument presented by Appellants. Based on the evidence of record, including the Examiner's Answer, we concur with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Final Action and Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 3-8. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 are 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 1 We refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 14, 2014. 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation