Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

13251632 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
13/251,632 10/03/2011 Hong Zhao 1142-197US01 8470
124176 7590 04/03/2017
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A./Motorola
1625 Radio Drive
Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
BIBBEE, CHAYCE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONG ZHAO, DENNIS J. BUDNICK, and
MAKARAND M. KARVEKAR
Appeal 2016-005349
Application 13/251,632
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, HUNG H. BUI, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—19, which constitute all pending claims in the application. Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2016-005349
Application 13/251,632
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants, their invention relates to methods and
apparatuses for detecting false wake conditions of an electronic device when
detecting a double tap by the device’s sensors. Spec. 12. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
detecting, at a sensor circuit of a portable electronic
device, movement associated with a double tap input provided at
a display of the portable electronic device;
detecting, at the sensor circuit, movement of the portable
electronic device occurring subsequent to detection of the double
tap input;
determining, at the sensor circuit, whether the movement
of the portable electronic device occurring subsequent to
detection of the double tap input corresponds to at least one false
wake condition; and
waking the display from a sleep state in response to
determining that the movement of the portable electronic device
occurring subsequent to detection of the double tap input does
not correspond to the at least one false wake condition.
REFERENCES
Arrigo US 2004/0189603 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Kim US 2010/0256947 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
REJECTION
Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Kim and Arrigo. Final Act. 1.
2
Appeal 2016-005349
Application 13/251,632
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10—12, 15, and 16
The Examiner finds Kim discloses a portable electronic device with a
sensor circuit containing a tri-axis accelerometer that detects movement
associated with a double tap input, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3, citing
Kim Abstract. The Examiner finds Arrigo discloses using a double click
input (to an optical mouse) to transition (wake up) from a walk mode to a
run mode. Final Act 4, citing Arrigo 97, 98. In Arrigo’s disclosures cited
by the Examiner, Arrigo describes detecting movement after the double­
click input to determine whether the movement is a false activity, by, for
example, deeming the movement of less than 10 millimeters to be false
activity. Id. at || 97, 98. The Examiner finds these combined disclosures
teach or suggest all elements of claim 1. Final Act. 4—5, citing Arrigo Tflf 9,
51, 95—98, Kim Abstract.
Appellants argue the combination of Kim and Arrigo does not teach
or suggest all of the elements of claim 1 because (i) Arrigo teaches the use of
different sensors to detect the double-click and the movement that follows
the double-click; and (ii) the sensors on Arrigo’s mouse are not equivalent to
the tri-axis accelerometer disclosed in Kim, and, therefore, Kim and Arrigo
would not be combined and, even if they were, combining Arrigo’s
teachings of measuring movement of a mouse with Kim’s double tap input
would not result in the claimed invention. App. Br. 7—12; Reply Br. 4—6.
We, however, are not persuaded by these arguments. First, as the Examiner
finds, Kim discloses one sensor that detects both double taps and movement.
Ans. 8, citing Kim 114. Second, the issue for obviousness is not of bodily
incorporation. In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332—33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3
Appeal 2016-005349
Application 13/251,632
Here, the Examiner does not combine Arrigo’s mouse with Kim’s portable
device. Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 8—9. The Examiner combines Arrigo’s
teachings of determining a false wake activity based on movement with
Kim’s sensor input. Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 8—9. Appellants present no
persuasive arguments or evidence indicating that those teachings would not
be combined or would not result in the claimed invention. App. Br. 7—12;
Reply Br. 5—7.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 5, 6,
10-12, 15, and 16, not separately argued. App. Br. 7—16.
Claims 3 and 13
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by relying on Kim as teaching or
suggesting the limitation in claim 3, i.e., “the false wake condition is based
on average total acceleration after double tap,” where the average total
acceleration is associated with the formula recited in claim 3, and, within a
predetermined time period, the average total acceleration exceeds a
threshold. App. Br. 12—13. In particular, Appellants argue Kim teaches the
use of the recited formula for detecting taps, not for determining a false
wake condition. Id. at 13. We are not persuaded because Appellants’
argument attacks Kim individually when the Examiner’s rejection is based
on the combination of Kim and Arrigo. Final Act. 3. In particular, the
Examiner relies on (i) Kim for detecting motion using the recited formula
and (ii) Arrigo for determining a false wake condition. Ans. 9. Appellants
do not present any persuasive arguments as to why that combination does
not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 3 as incorporated into base
claim 1. App. Br. 12—13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3
and of claim 13, for which Appellants present the same arguments. Id.
4
Appeal 2016-005349
Application 13/251,632
Claims 4, 7, 8, 14, 17, and 18
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by relying on Kim as teaching or
suggesting all the limitations of claims 4, 7, 8, 14, 17, and 18 as incorporated
into their respective base claims. App. Br. 13—15. The Examiner, however,
does not rely upon just Kim for any of these limitations, and Appellants do
not present any persuasive arguments as why the combination of references
relied on by the Examiner (i.e., Kim and Arrigo) does not teach or suggest
these limitations. Id.; Ans. 9—10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 7, 8, 14, 17, and 18.
Claims 9 and 19
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by relying on Kim as teaching or
suggesting all the limitations of claims 9 and 19 as incorporated into their
respective base claims. App. Br. 15—16. For this limitation, the Examiner
relies on Kim as teaching or suggesting the recited “orientation data.” Ans.
11, citing Kim 139. The Examiner, however, does not provide a sufficient
explanation as to why Kim would teach or suggest the use of such data. In
particular, the Examiner finds Kim determines the direction of a tap and thus
could determine how the device is being held or in what position the device
is in relative to the user. Id. This, however, does not explain why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to have the involved method or
device make that determination. Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 9 and 19.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—18.
We reverse the rejection of claims 9 and 19.
5
Appeal 2016-005349
Application 13/251,632
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-IN-PART
6