Ex Parte Nissila

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2009

09969825 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SEPPO NISSILA
__________

Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided:1 April 28, 2009
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a wrist-
worn device. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-18 are pending and on appeal (App. Br.2 2).
We will focus on claims 1, 2, 15, and 16, which read as follows:
1. A wrist-worn device comprising a wristband to be arranged
around the wrist and an electronics unit in connection with the wristband, the
electronics unit being arranged to process a value of an exercising variable
relating to a physical activity, the wrist-worn device further comprising a bar
display for showing the exercising variable value, wherein the electronics
unit and bar display are encapsulated by the wristband, such that the
electronics unit and bar display are integral parts of the wristband, the bar
display being flexible, the bar display comprising a string of display areas
arranged substantially parallel to the wristband.
2. A wrist-worn device according to claim 1, wherein the
wristband, display and electronics unit of the device are sealed and
integrated together with plastic to form a uniform piece.
15. A wrist-worn device according to Claim 1, further comprising
at least one wire connecting the electronics unit and display, the at least one
wire, electronics unit, and display being entirely encapsulated by the
wristband.
16. A wrist-worn device according to Claim 1, wherein the
electronics unit and display are seamlessly encapsulated by the wristband,
such that the electronics unit and display are sealed against water and other
contaminants.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Freeman (US 5,931,764, Aug. 3, 1999) in view of Suga
(US 5,579,777, Dec. 3, 1996) (Ans.3 4).
The Examiner relies on Freeman for teaching:
a wrist worn device . . . with a wristband . . . , an electronics
unit ( . . . figure 2B @ 39 . . . ) and flexible display (figure 1 @

2 Amended Appeal Brief date stamped May 15, 2007.
3 Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed January 23, 2008.
2
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

12 . . . ), both the electronics unit and the display [being]
seamlessly encapsulated by the wristband . . . to make them
integral parts of the wristband forming a uniform piece, the
electronics unit adapted to process a value of an exercise
variable associated with physical activity . . . and the display
adapted to display a value of the exercising variable.
(Ans. 4.) In particular, the Examiner finds that Freeman teaches that the
“electronics unit (39) and the display (12 . . . ) are encapsulated in the
protective layers . . . and in the polymer edging” (id. at 9).
The Examiner relies on Suga for teaching “the display of exercise data
using an illuminating bar display such that the display is a bar display with a
string of display areas, the bar ranges arranged substantially parallel to the
wristband” (id. at 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious
to have used an illuminating bar display such that the display
has a string of display areas, . . . the value ranges on the bar
display being arranged in a straight line in the Freeman et al.
system in order to utilize a proven means of exercise data
display so the user can monitor his activity and optimize his
efforts to maintain his health and/or develop his physical
strength.
(Id. at 6-7.)
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Suga can be combined with
Freeman?
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Freeman discloses or suggests
a device having an electronics unit and a display that are encapsulated by the
wristband?
3
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

Did the Examiner err in concluding that Freeman discloses or suggests
that the wristband, the display, and the electronics unit are sealed and
integrated together with plastic to form a uniform piece?
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Freeman discloses or suggests
seamless encapsulation of the display and electronics unit?
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Freeman and Suga, as
combined, disclose or suggest a wire connecting the electronics unit and
display that is encapsulated by the wristband?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Freeman discloses “a wearable device 10 includ[ing] a flexible
display element 12 and a strap 22 that forms the body of the device 10. The
strap 22 can secure the device 10 around a person’s wrist.” (Freeman, col. 2,
ll. 21-24.)
2. Freeman Figure 2B is reproduced below:

Freeman “FIG. 2B is a cross-sectional view of the wearable device shown
through cross section B—B of FIG. 1” (id. at col. 2, ll. 3-4).
3. Freeman discloses:
[T]he device 10 includes protective top 26 and bottom 28 layers
and inner separator 27. The top layer 26 covers the display
4
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

element with a transparent material such as PVC or clear
plastic. The top 26 and bottom 28 layers may otherwise be
constructed from a flexible polymer such as polycarbonate.
Other embodiments could use plastic. . . . Polymer edging 20
may be attached to the layers 26 and 28 to both add comfort to
a wearer and waterproof the assembly.
(Id. at col. 2, l. 66, to col. 3, l. 10.)
4. Freeman also discloses that “[l]ayers 26 and 28 may be molded
or machined into the necessary shape to accommodate internal components”
(id. at col. 3, ll. 11-12).
5. In addition, Freeman discloses that the “internal components
include an integrated circuit 39 mounted above a printed circuit board 36 . . .
[, t]he size of the integrated circuit 39 and the printed circuit board 36
[being] exaggerated in the cross-sectional view of FIG. 2B” (id. at col. 3,
ll. 12-20).
6. Freeman also discloses that the “integrated circuit 39 may
include a microprocessor 40” and that “the microprocessor 40 can receive
input from sensors 60 that physiologically monitor a wearer of the
device 10,” for example, collecting physiological data such as a wearer’s
heart rate or electrocardiographic data, which “can be displayed and/or
stored for future download” (id. at col. 3, ll. 17-18, & col. 4, ll. 29-37).
7. In particular, Freeman discloses that runners can use the device
as a physiological monitor (id. at col. 4, ll. 58-60).
8. Suga discloses “an exercise level of difficulty data output
apparatus which counts the number of pulses of a user and outputs data
representative of exercise level of difficulty based on the counted number of
pulses” (Suga, col. 1, ll. 10-13).
5
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

9. In particular, Suga discloses that the apparatus is an electronic
wrist watch having a display unit 13 having a pulse-number bar-graph
display portion 13c (id. at col. 2, l. 61, to col. 3, l. 42, & col. 5, ll. 7-19).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“In determining whether obviousness is established by combining the
teachings of the prior art, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations
omitted). “The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In addition,
“any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements
in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
ANALYSIS
Freeman discloses a wearable device including a flexible display
element 12 and a strap for securing the device around a person’s wrist
(Finding of Fact (FF) 1). As an internal component, Freeman discloses an
integrated circuit 39 including a microprocessor that physiologically
monitors a wearer of the device, such as while running (FF 5-7).
Suga discloses an exercise level of difficulty data output apparatus,
such as a wrist watch, that displays pulse number data in the form of a bar
6
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

graph (FF 8-9). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to use a bar graph to display data on Freeman’s display element.
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR
Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416.
Appellant argues, however, that “the Examiner has set forth two
disparate arguments based upon two separate unrelated references to support
her arguments, all without showing a motivation, suggestion, or teaching to
combine these references in the manner indicated” (App. Br. 10).
We are not persuaded. As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 10), both
Freeman and Suga are directed to wrist-worn devices for monitoring the
physiological effects of exercise (FF 1 & 6-9). Thus, we do not agree that
these two references are unrelated. In addition, the Examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to use Suga’s bar graph in Freeman’s device “in
order to utilize a proven means of exercise data display so the user can
monitor his activity and optimize his efforts to maintain his health and/or
develop his physical strength” (Ans. 7). Appellant has not explained why
this finding is incorrect.
Appellant does argue that this reason to combine is not set forth in
Suga (Supp. Reply Br.4 2). However, the reason to combine need not be
recited in the references themselves. As indicated by the Supreme Court,
“any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements
in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 420.

4 Supplemental Reply Brief dated March 12, 2008.
7
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

Appellant also argues that “Figure 2B of Freeman clearly shows that
the integrated circuit 39 . . . is not encapsulated by protective layers 26, 28
and polymer edging 20 since it is at least partially covered by the printed
circuit board 36” (App. Br. 7). In particular, Appellant argues that “the
integrated circuit 39 clearly requires protective layers 26, 28, 20 and the
printed circuit board 36 for the integrated circuit 39 to be encapsulated.
Thus, the electronics unit and display cannot be interpreted as being
encapsulated by the wristband.” (Reply Br.5 3-4.) Therefore, Appellant
argues:
[N]othing in Freeman would teach or suggest encapsulation of
an electronics unit and display by a wristband defined by
Claim[] 1 . . . ; sealing and integrating the wristband, display,
and electronics unit together with plastic to form a uniform
piece defined by Claim 2; or seamlessly encapsulating the
electronics unit and display by the wristband defined by
Claim 16.
(App. Br. 7-8.)
We are not persuaded. Freeman discloses a device including
protective top and bottom layers 26 and 28 and polymer edging 20 attached
to layers 26 and 28 to waterproof the assembly (FF 2-3). In particular,
Freeman discloses that the top layer 26 covers the display element 12 with a
transparent material (FF 3). In addition, Freeman discloses that the layers 26
and 28 are manufactured “to accommodate internal components” (FF 4) and
describes “integrated circuit 39 mounted above a printed circuit board” as an
internal component (FF 5). Based on these disclosures, we conclude that the

5 Reply Brief dated November 2, 2007.
8
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

Examiner reasonably understood that both the display element 12 and the
integrated circuit 39 are encapsulated by the wristband.
We recognize that Freeman Figure 2B does not clearly show whether
layer 28 covers integrated circuit 39 (FF 2). However, in the absence of any
teaching that layer 28 does not cover integrated circuit 39, we conclude that
Freeman at least suggests covering integrated circuit 39 with layer 28 to
protect the integrated circuit. Furthermore, even if layer 28 did not cover the
integrated circuit, we do not agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 3-4) that the
printed circuit board 36 cannot be considered part of the wristband that is
encapsulating the integrated circuit.
Freeman also discloses that layers 26 and 28 may be formed of plastic
(FF 3). Thus, we also agree that Freeman discloses that the wristband,
display element 12, and integrated circuit 39 are sealed and integrated
together with plastic to form a uniform piece, as recited in claim 2. In
addition, given that layers 26 and 28 are protective layers and the polymer
edging 20 is intended to waterproof the assembly, we conclude that Freeman
teaches or suggests seamless encapsulation of the display element 12 and the
integrated circuit 39, as recited in claim 16.
Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case that claim 15 would have been obvious (Ans. 10; Reply
Br. 5; Supp. Reply Br. 3). We do not agree.
The Examiner relies on Suga for teaching a “connection between the
electronics unit and display accepted to be hardwired for the purpose of
controlling the measurement and display of the activity/cardiac data”
(Ans. 7). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
9
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

include such a connection in Freeman’s system “in order to utilize a proven
means of measuring and controlling the display of the activity/cardiac data”
(id.). Appellant has not pointed to and we do not detect an error in the
Examiner’s reasoning. In addition, given that we agree with the Examiner
that both the integrated circuit 39 and the display element 12 are
encapsulated by the wristband, we conclude that it would have been obvious
for a wire connecting the integrated circuit 39 and the display element 12 to
also be encapsulated.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
Suga can be combined with Freeman; that Freeman discloses or suggests a
device having an electronics unit and a display that are encapsulated by the
wristband; that Freeman discloses or suggests that the wristband, the display,
and the electronics unit are sealed and integrated together with plastic to
form a uniform piece; that Freeman discloses or suggests seamless
encapsulation of the display and electronics unit; and that Freeman and
Suga, as combined, disclose or suggest a wire connecting the electronics unit
and display that is encapsulated by the wristband. We therefore affirm the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 15, and 16. Claims 3-7, 9-12, 14, 17,
and 18 have not been argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED
10
Appeal 2008-5827
Application 09/969,825

dm

CHARLES R. HOFFMANN, ESQ.
HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP
6900 JERICHO TURNPIKE
SYOSSET, NY 11791

11