Ex Parte Moosavi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

13034006 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/034,006 02/24/2011
85643 7590 08/04/2016
Guntin & Gust, PLC - BB DOCKET
117 S. Cook St.
No. 358
Barrington, IL 60010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
V AHID MOOSA VI
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.
38671-US-PAT_l03-0071 9983
EXAMINER
JUSTUS, RALPH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docketing@ggip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VAHID MOOSA VI, DAVID RYAN WALKER, and
KEVIN ORR
Appeal 2015-003165
Application 13/034,006
Technology Center 2600
Before: DANIEL N. FISHMAN, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3,5,9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19,and22. Claims2,4,6-8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17,20,
and 21 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-003165
Application 13/034,006
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to determining a direction of wireless data
transmission between devices based on orientation of one of the devices.
Spec., Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A mobile communications device for use in a
communication system having at least one electronic device
comprising a first display and configured to wirelessly
communicate via a Near-Field Communications (NFC) format
the mobile communications device comprising:
an NFC device configured to wirelessly communicate with
said at least one electronic device via the NFC format,
a second display;
an orientation detection sensor; and
a controller coupled with said NFC device, said orientation
detection sensor and said second display, the controller being
configured to
determine the direction that said second display is
facing based upon said orientation detection sensor, and
determine whether to transfer data to, receive data
from, or exchange data with respect to said at least one
electronic device based upon the determined direction that
said second display is facing,
wherein said controller is configured to cause said
NFC device to transmit digital content data to said at least
one electronic device based upon the determined direction
of said second display facing substantially upward or away
from an operator of said at least one mobile
communications device, and to cause said NFC device to
receive digital content data from said at least one
electronic device based upon the determined direction of
said second display facing substantially downward or
toward an operator of said at least one mobile
communications device.
2
Appeal2015-003165
Application 13/034,006
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19 and22 stand rejected underpre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hodges (US 2008/0195735
Al; published Aug. 14, 2008), Ahlgren (US 7,986,917 B2; issued July 26,
2011), and Alameh (US 8,275,412 B2; issued Sept. 25, 2012). Ans. 2-13.
ANALYSIS
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-15) and
as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 2-15). However, we
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Appellants present the following argument with respect to the
Examiner's rejection of the independent claims:
the Examiner has not cited any reference that teaches
determining the direction the second display is facing based upon
the orientation detection sensor, and determining whether to
transfer data to, receive data from, or exchange data with respect
to the at least one electronic device based upon the determined
direction the second display is facing; or further, that the NFC
device is caused to transmit digital content data to the at least one
electronic device based upon the determined direction of the
second display facing substantially upward or away from an
operator of the at least one mobile communications device, and
caused to receive digital content data from the at least one
electronic device based upon the determined direction of the
second display facing substantially downward or toward an
operator of the at least one mobile communications device, as set
forth in the independent claims.
App. Br. 10-11. Appellants rely on the foregoing for all pending claims.
See, generally, Appeal Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 2.
3
Appeal2015-003165
Application 13/034,006
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art
to combine the device display orientations and subsequent
signaling of Alameh, with the device housing and display
features as a reference of the device's orientation in order to
define the data transfer direction of Ahlgren, along with the data
transfer controlling functions based on the orientations of
devices involved in the transfer of Hodges in order to establish a
convention to control in which direction (transmit/receive/
exchange) data transfers should occur (e.g., towards or away
from the second device) depending on the orientation of the
second display facing upward or downward, and thereby meet in
combination all the limitations of the claimed invention.
Ans. 15.
Appellants reply that Alameh "makes no reference to the orientation
of the display other than it is associated with a first side of the device," and
Ahlgren and Alameh "fail to teach that the direction of data transfer is based
upon a direction in which the display of the mobile device is facing." Reply
Br. 2. Appellants assert that the Examiner is "improperly making a series of
logical leaps that are not supported by the prior art and that are improperly
based upon Appellants' specification." Id.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection (Ans. 2--4), Appellants'
arguments (App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 2), and the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments (Ans. 14--15). We are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's findings and conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious in
view of the combined teachings of the cited references.
Specifically, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments against
Alameh alone or the combination of Ahlgren and Alameh only (Reply Br.
2), because the Examiner's rejection relies on the combined teachings of
Hodges, Ahlgren, and Alameh (Ans. 14--15). And we are unpersuaded of
4
Appeal2015-003165
Application 13/034,006
error based on Appellants' general allegation that the Examiner's rejection
improperly makes "a series of logical leaps that are not supported by the
prior art and that are improperly based upon Appellants' specification"
(Reply Br. 2) because Appellants do not identify the supposedly improper
leaps.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject all pending
claims in view of the foregoing.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12,
15, 18, 19, and22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRivIED
5