Ex Parte Hunt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201814036200 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/036,200 09/25/2013 John Miles Hunt RPS920130080USNP(710.254) 6479 58127 7590 01/31/2018 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 EXAMINER TERRELL, EMILY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2018 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 JOHN MILES HUNT and JOHN WELDON NICHOLSON ___________ Appeal 2017-008428 Application 14/036,2001 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lenovo (Singapore) PTE LTD. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2017-008428 Application 14/036,200 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a wearable information handling device. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A wearable information handling device, comprising: a display; a band comprising a plurality of elements at different locations of the band, one or more of the elements comprising an actuator; one or more processors operatively coupled to the display; and a memory device accessible to the one or more processors and storing code executable by the one or more processors to: receive a communication, the communication selected from the group consisting of: user request, electronic mail, and text message; in response to the communication, forming an output directed to the band of the wearable information handling device; and provide the output to the band; the output engaging one or more actuators to change a circumference of the band. Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pontarelli (US 2014/0180582 A1; June 26, 2014) and Jersa (US 8,519,834 B2; Aug. 27, 2013). Appeal 2017-008428 Application 14/036,200 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 20–21) that the combination of Pontarelli and Jersa would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “the output engaging one or more actuators to change a circumference of the band.” The Examiner found that the wristband of Pontarelli, having haptic feedback devices around its circumference for compressing or squeezing the user’s wrist, corresponds to the limitation “the output engaging one or more actuators to change a circumference of the band.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5–6.) We agree with the Examiner. Pontarelli relates to a wearable navigation device, in particular, “a wristband comprising a plurality of haptic feedback devices arranged around a circumference of the wristband.” (Abstract.) Figure 1 of Pontarelli illustrates wristband 110 (¶ 19), which includes “haptic feedback device(s) 155-g [that] may comprise one or more vibration devices, compression devices, electroactive polymers, piezoelectric devices, electrostatic devices, or subsonic audio wave surface actuation devices” (¶ 21). Similarly, Pontarelli explains that an active wristband “comprises a segmented series of elements that provide feedback to the wearer in a variety of manners, such as . . . vibration, constriction of the wrist, etc.” and “[t]he wristband may be operative to interpret these navigation primitives into user feedback such as squeezing or vibrating the inside, outside or circumference of the wrist.” (¶ 13.) Moreover, in one example, Pontarelli explains that “all of the haptic feedback devices 155-g may be periodically activated to indicate an Appeal 2017-008428 Application 14/036,200 4 upcoming stop.” (¶ 58.) Because wristband 110 of Pontarelli includes haptic feedback devices 155-g that can constrict or squeeze the user’s wrist from the inside, Pontarelli teaches the limitation “the output engaging one or more actuators to change a circumference of the band.” Appellants argue that “Pontarelli only provides haptic feedback as a method of providing different navigation commands” and “Jersa, for its part, only provides vibration output (i.e., actuating the vibrating unit)” so “[n]owhere in the references is it disclosed that providing output to a user ‘change[s] a circumference of the band.’” (App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 20.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner cited the embodiment of Pontarelli in which wristband 110 squeezes or constricts the user’s wrist. (Final Act. 4.) Appellants further argue that “changing the entire circumstance [sic] of the band would make Pontarelli inoperable” because “if the entire circumference of the band were reduced (e.g., by inflating all of the elements of the band), the band would not provide the user with any navigational purpose because no portions of the band would not stand out to provide the user with a direction.” (App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 20–21.) However, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Pontarelli includes an example in which “all of the haptic feedback devices 155-g may be periodically activated to indicate an upcoming stop.” (¶ 58.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pontarelli and Jersa would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “the output engaging one or more actuators to change a circumference of the band.” Appeal 2017-008428 Application 14/036,200 5 We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 17–18; see also Reply Br. 21) that the combination of Pontarelli and Jersa would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “a display.” The Examiner found that the display of Pontarelli displays content to the user of the wristband, and thus, corresponds to the limitation “a display.” (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 7–8.) We agree with the Examiner. In reference to Figure 1, Pontarelli explains that “[i]n one embodiment, the system or apparatus 100 . . . may comprise a computer- based system comprising electronic/computing device 110 and electronic/computing device 120.” (¶ 19.) Pontarelli further explains that “[t]he wristband 110 and/or computing device 120 may comprise one or more displays 170-d in some embodiments.” (¶ 29.) Because Pontarelli explains that wristband 110 may include displays 170-d, Pontarelli teaches the limitation “a display.” Appellants argue that “the wristband of Pontarelli is intended to standalone without a display” (App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 21) and that “the display is present on a separate information handling device, and is not physically coupled to the wristband” (App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 21). However, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, in one embodiment, Pontarelli explains that “wristband 110 . . . may comprise one or more displays 170-d.” (¶ 29.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pontarelli and Jersa would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “a display.” Appeal 2017-008428 Application 14/036,200 6 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2, 3, and 5–10 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 20 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 20, as well as dependent claims 12, 13, and 15–19 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Claims 4 and 14 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 18–19; see also Reply Br. 21–22) that the combination of Pontarelli and Jersa would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 4, which includes the limitation “wherein the one or more elements are swelled.” The Examiner acknowledged that the combination of Pontarelli and Jersa does not teach the limitation “wherein the one or more elements are swelled.” (Final Act. 6.) However, the Examiner found that the wristband of Pontarelli provides feedback to the user by constricting or squeezing the user’s wrist (id. at 6–7) and concluded “it would have been obvious . . . the change in size and shape of the band provides similar functionality to that of the size change through swelling as disclosed, and yields no unpredictable results” and “changing in size could result in growth or enlargement of the Appeal 2017-008428 Application 14/036,200 7 band to accommodate the wrist of the user” (id. at 7). We agree with the Examiner. As discussed previously, Figure 1 of Pontarelli illustrates wristband 110 (¶ 19), which includes “haptic feedback device(s) 155-g [that] may comprise . . . compression devices” (¶ 21) and that the active wristband “comprises a segmented series of elements that provide feedback to the wearer in a variety of manners, such as . . . constriction of the wrist” (¶ 13). Moreover, Pontarelli explains that “[t]he wristband may be operative to interpret these navigation primitives into user feedback such as squeezing . . . inside . . . the wrist.” (Id.) In addition, Pontarelli explains that “[t]he wristband 110 may be designed to flex, stretch or otherwise adapt to the shape of a user’s wrist in various embodiments.” (¶ 46.) Appellants argue that “the cited portions of Pontarelli are directed to actuating, e.g., by vibrating, the elements of the band to provide directional cues to a user” and “submits that vibrating the elements is readily distinguishable from swelling the elements.” (App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 22.) However, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon a finding that wristband 110 of Pontarelli squeezes or constricts the user’s wrist, rather than the vibration of wristband 110. (Final Act. 7.) Thus, Appellants have not addressed the substance of the Examiner’s rejection. Moreover, we note that a prior art reference need not use identical language as the claim (i.e., an ipsissimis verbis or in haec verbis test is not required). Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Appeal 2017-008428 Application 14/036,200 8 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pontarelli and Jersa would have rendered obvious dependent claim 4, which includes the limitation “wherein the one or more elements are swelled.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claim 14 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to dependent claim 4, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of claim 14 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 4. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation