Ex Parte Sharma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13995450 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
13/995,450 08/05/2013 Sangita Sharma 42P38389 3144
45209 7590 11/02/2017
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
Database_Group@bstz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANGITA SHARMA, DAVID L. GRAUMANN, and
GIUSEPPE RAFFA
Appeal 2017-006181
Application 13/995,4501
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—3 and 6—27, which are all the pending claims in the application.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 4 was canceled by amendment on July 7, 2015, and claim 5 was
canceled by preliminary amendment on June 18, 2013.
Appeal 2017-006181
Application 13/995,450
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to mobile device activation by user
grasp. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A mobile device comprising:
a display screen;
a cover, the cover including at least a lower side, a first
side, and a second opposite side, the lower side being a bottom
side of the cover when the mobile device is in a normal use
position, the first side and the second side being on opposite sides
of the display screen and on opposite sides of the lower side, the
cover including a plurality of comers, the plurality of comers
including a first bottom comer, the first bottom comer adjoining
the first side and the lower side;
a concave indentation in the cover to allow resting of the
mobile device in part on a first finger of a first hand of a user
when the mobile device is in the normal use position for the first
hand, the concave indentation being located at the first bottom
comer of the cover of the mobile device and being an indentation
in the first side and the lower side of the cover;
an activate touch sensor located in the concave
indentation, the activate touch sensor to generate a first signal
upon physical contact or proximity with the first finger of the
first hand of the user of the mobile device;
a side touch sensor located in the second opposite side of
the cover of the mobile device, the side touch sensor to provide
input to the mobile device in response to physical contact or
proximity of a thumb of the first hand of the user; and
an activation module, the activation module to transition
the mobile device from a deactivated state to an activated state
2
Appeal 2017-006181
Application 13/995,450
upon receiving at least the first signal from the activate touch
sensor.
The Examiner s Rejections
Claims 1—3, 6—8, 10-13, 16—21, 23—25, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hansson (US 2009/0312051
Al; Dec. 17, 2009) andFerren (US 2010/0315356 Al; Dec. 16, 2010).
Claims 9, 14, 15, 22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hansson, Ferren, and Sellers (US 5,666,541;
Sept. 9, 1997).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections in light of
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the Examiner’s conclusions. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants contend Ferren’s indented sensor cannot be located in a
bottom comer of a mobile device cover because it is intended for thumb
control and cannot be used by a “finger” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 5—7. Appellants also contend the Examiner failed to find a single
teaching of “the concave indentation being located at the first bottom comer
of the cover of the mobile device,” but rather improperly separated this
claimed feature into separate elements, i.e., the concave indentation itself,
3
Appeal 2017-006181
Application 13/995,450
and the location of such concave indentation. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 7—8.
Further, Appellants contend the Examiner did not properly address the
combination of the claimed “activate touch sensor” located in the concave
indentation in the bottom comer of the mobile device cover and the claimed
“side touch sensor” located on the opposite side of the mobile device cover,
“which thus are elements that work together in the operation of a mobile
device.” App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 8—9.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. First, we note
“[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the stmcture of the primary
reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, Hansson teaches a sensor
may be placed in the comer of a mobile device cover. Hansson, || 57—58;
Fig. 4. Ferren teaches a sensor, which may be intended for use by a thumb,
may be placed in a concave indentation on the side of a mobile device cover.
Ferren, || 25, 29; Fig. 3. The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to
place Hansson’s comer sensor in a concave indentation in view of Ferren.
Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 10—11. The Examiner does not propose moving
Ferren’s thumb sensor wholesale into the comer of a device, expecting it to
still operate as a thumb sensor. Rather, “[t]he only thing that Ferren is relied
upon is teaching that the sensor be in a concave indentation.” Ans. 10.
Thus, it is the combined teachings of Hansson and Ferren that forms the
basis of the Examiner’s rejection.
In any case, Ferren’s teachings are not limited to a thumb sensor as
suggested by Appellants’ argument that Ferren’s sensor cannot be located in
a comer. See App. Br. 13. Ferren provides “the positions and
4
Appeal 2017-006181
Application 13/995,450
configurations described herein are provided for purposes of illustration and
not limitation and that other embodiments, positions and configurations are
possible and still fall within the described embodiments.” Ferren, 129. As
an example, although Ferren describes a sensor “having a shape, feel and
placement on device 100 selected to allow a thumb to rest comfortably”
(Ferren, 125), Ferren also describes an embodiment where the mobile
device is operative in landscape mode so that the sensor is “positioned on the
relative top of the device such that a user’s index finger may be positioned]
over the contoured sensor.” Ferren, 118. Accordingly, Ferren’s teachings
that a finger or thumb can operated a contoured sensor, which may be
designed as a concave indentation, and that different positions and
configurations are possible, demonstrate the applicability of Ferren’s
concave indentation to Hansson’s device in which a finger controls a sensor
on the comer of a mobile device cover. Hansson, || 48, 57—58.
Second, regarding Appellants’ argument that the Examiner improperly
separated the limitation “the concave indentation being located at the first
bottom comer of the cover of the mobile device” into two parts (App. Br.
16), we note that “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). The fact that the Examiner
relies on Hansson for teaching a sensor located in the comer of a mobile
device cover, and relies on Ferren for teaching a sensor placed in a concave
indentation is not evidence of an improper rejection, but rather reflects that
the test for obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425.
5
Appeal 2017-006181
Application 13/995,450
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner failed to address the claimed combination of an “activation touch
sensor” and a “side touch sensor” that “work together in the operation of a
mobile device.” App. Br. 13—14. Claim 1 does not recite any combined
functionality of the activation and side sensors—i.e, there is no claimed
functionality caused by the interaction of the activation and side sensors.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with claim
1.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6—8, 10-13, 16—21, 23—25, and 27
not specifically argued separately (see App. Br. 9-14), as unpatentable over
Hansson and Ferren, such that we sustain that rejection. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 9, 14, 15, 22, and 26 as unpatentable over Hansson,
Ferren, and Sellers, for which Appellants offer no separate argument. See
App. Br. 14.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—3 and 6—27.
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
6