Ex Parte Stoev et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 1, 2011

11192422 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 1, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JULIAN STOEV, JUN-SEOK SHIM,
HAENG-SOO LEE, SANG-EUN BAEK,
and KYU-NAM CHO
________________

Appeal 2009-008901
Application 11/192,422
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-008901
Application 11/192,422

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-12:
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Ragner (US 7,059,182 B1; issued June 13, 2006 (filed March 3, 2005)).
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ragner.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe their invention as pertaining to “[a] method, an
apparatus and a computer readable recording medium storing a program for
correctly detecting a free fall [of a mobile device]” (Abstract).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of detecting a free fall of a device, the method
comprising:
sensing an acceleration of the device;
integrating a sensed acceleration with respect to time;
and
detecting the free fall by comparing a result of the
integrating with a predetermined area threshold.
(App. Br. 14).
Appellants argue claims 1-12 together as a group. See App. Br. 9-13.
Appellants additionally argue claims 2 and 8 as a separate group. We
therefore select independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims
1 and 7, and we select claim 2 as representative of claims 2, 3, 8 and 9. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-008901
Application 11/192,422

3
CLAIMS 1, 4-7, AND 10-12
Appellants acknowledge that Ragner “discloses a mode for releasing
the impact arms [of a portable device] when three conditions are met: low
acceleration in an inertial frame of the device; very low rates of change in
acceleration and a vertical velocity and/or total velocity that is greater than a
predetermined threshold velocity” (App. Br. 9-10). Appellants contend that
this disclosure is different from teaching or suggesting “detecting a free-fall
by comparing a result of integrating a sensed acceleration with respect to
time with a predetermined area threshold as required by the claims” (App.
Br. 10 (emphasis omitted)).
The Examiner notes “Applicant does not clarify what the area
threshold is” (Ans. 7). The Examiner explains that the claim language,
comparing a result of “‘integrating a sensed acceleration with respect to
time’ . . . with a predetermined area threshold,” is being interpreted to mean
comparing a determined velocity with a predetermined or threshold velocity
because “[t]he output of the integration of the acceleration with respect to
the time is the velocity” (Ans. 8).
Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence that the Examiner
erred in finding the claim language to be synonymous with the Examiner’s
interpretation (see App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 7-8). Appellants only contend
that the original Specification clearly defines the area threshold by
disclosing “that the area threshold corresponds to a situation when an
acceleration is less than 0.5g for 200ms, and a predetermined area threshold
distinguishes non-freefall movements from freefall movements within a
volume of an area below 0.5g” (App. Br. 11).
Appeal 2009-008901
Application 11/192,422

4
This argument is not persuasive because the parameters described in
the Specification (0.5g and 200ms) do not constitute a definition for the term
“area threshold.” We instead understand these parameters to be unclaimed
features. See Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 689 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (noting that “‘each claim does not necessarily cover every feature
disclosed in the specification. When the claim addresses only some of the
features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to
other, unclaimed features’” (citation omitted)). Moreover, there is no
ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim
element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well
as of claim 7, which was not separately argued. Likewise, we will also
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4-6 and 10-12, which
were not separately argued.

CLAIMS 2, 3, 8, and 9
Claims 2 and 3 are illustrative:
2. A method of detecting a free fall of a device, the method
comprising:
sensing an acceleration of the device;
integrating the sensed acceleration if the sensed
acceleration is less than a predetermined acceleration
threshold; and
detecting the free fall by comparing a result of the
integrating with a predetermined area threshold.
Appeal 2009-008901
Application 11/192,422

5
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the integrating the
sensed acceleration is initiated if the sensed acceleration is
greater than a predetermined acceleration threshold.
(App. Br. 14 (emphases added)).
Appellants argue that Ragner does not teach or suggest integrating the
sensed acceleration if the sensed acceleration is less than a predetermined
acceleration threshold, as required by claim 2 (App. Br. 12). We understand
Appellants’ position to be that claim 2 requires integrating the sensed
acceleration only if the sensed acceleration is less than a predetermined
acceleration threshold, but not if the sensed acceleration is greater than a
predetermined threshold (see App. Br. 13 (contending that “a free fall alarm
[is not generated] as long as the result of the integration is not greater than
the predetermined area threshold”)).
We are not persuaded, though, that claim 2 must be interpreted so
narrowly. Claim 3 depends from claim 2, and as such, adds a further
limitation to the subject matter being claimed (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4).
Specifically, claim 3 expressly indicates that the sensed acceleration is also
integrated when the sensed acceleration is greater than a predetermined
acceleration threshold. That is, claim 3 provides evidence that claim 2 must
be interpreted more broadly than contended by Appellants. Claim 2 is
drafted broadly enough to read on a method of detecting free fall by
integrating a sensed acceleration regardless of whether the sensed
acceleration is less than, or greater than, a predetermined acceleration
threshold.
Because Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 2 are not
commensurate in scope with that claim, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 2.
Appeal 2009-008901
Application 11/192,422

6
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim. We
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, which was not separately
argued. We likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 9,
which respectively dependent from claims 2 and 8, and which were not
separately argued.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc