Ex Parte Raffa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2017

13834262 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2017)

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.
13/834,262 03/15/2013 Giuseppe Raffa P50252 8561
104333 7590 10/20/2017
International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C.
13231 Champion Forest Drive
Suite 410
Houston, TX 77069
EXAMINER
CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2017 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):
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
Intel_Docketing @ iiplg.com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GIUSEPPE RAFFA and CHIEH-YIH WAN1
Appeal 2017-002564
Application 13/834,262
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-21, 23, and 24, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 7, 14, and 22 are canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2017-002564
Application 13/834,262
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants generally describe the disclosed invention as follows:
The present disclosure provides techniques for
automatically changing device display orientation. A computing
device includes a display and an inertial measurement unit (IMU)
to detect changes in computing device orientation. The
computing device also includes a driver to change an orientation
of the display when a change in orientation of the computing
device is detected by the IMU. A camera can be used to track
user eye position in response to detection of a change in
orientation of the computing device by the IMU.
Abstract.2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation emphasized):
1. A device comprising logic, at least partially comprising
hardware logic, to:
receive data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU);
analyze IMU data for changes in computing device
orientation via a nine degree of freedom (9DOF) algorithm,
wherein the data is mapped to a specific display orientation; and
orient a device display in accordance with the computing
device orientation.
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Sept. 24, 2015
(“Final Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Mar. 25, 2016 (“App. Br.”)
and Reply Brief filed Nov. 29, 2016 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Oct. 3, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed Mar. 15,
2013 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-002564
Application 13/834,262
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2013/0201219 Al;
published Aug. 8, 2013) (“Zhao”) and Ye et al. (US 2011/0175806 Al;
published July 21, 2011) (“Ye”).
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue3 raised by the Appellants is whether Zhao
teaches or suggests “an inertial measurement unit (IMU),” as recited in each
of the independent claims—claims 1,9, 17, and 24.
The Examiner concludes that, consistent with paragraph 22 of
Appellants’ Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claimed IMU is “any device that captures direction, rotation, and
acceleration.” Ans. 2-3. Based on this interpretation, the Examiner finds
that the first/primary sensor disclosed by Zhao—a 3-axis accelerometer—is
an IMU. Id. at 3 (citing Zhao ^ 32). In that regard, the Examiner also finds:
Since an accelerometer is used, acceleration is captured. Since
projections of Earth’s gravity are measured in 3 directions
[namely, X, Y, and Z], direction is captured. Paragraph [0032]
goes on to describe how the projections are used to determine the
device’s rotation.
Id.
Although we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed
IMU, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has
erred. In particular, we agree with Appellants’ argument that the
3 Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs raise other issues, but we do not
address them because we find this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal 2017-002564
Application 13/834,262
accelerometer in Zhao does not capture direction. Reply Br. 2. Appellants’
argue, and we agree, the projections of the Earth’s gravity, namely X, Y, and
Z, “do not yield the direction of a computing device,” but are “the
components of the Earth’s gravitational field along the X, Y, and Z
coordinate axes.” Id. We also agree with Appellants’ argument that the
accelerometer of Zhao does not capture rotation. Id. at 2-3. In that regard,
Appellants argue, and we agree, “[a] careful reading of paragraph [0032]
indicates that the projections are used to calculate ©t, a threshold angle
which governs operation of the imager in Zhao.” Id. at 3 (citing Zhao ^ 32).
Thus, because the accelerometer of Zhao does not capture the
direction and rotation of a computing device, Zhao does not teach or suggest
the claimed IMU. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, and dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18-
21, and 23, for obviousness under § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-21, 23,
and 24 for obviousness under § 103(a).
REVERSED
4