Nikhil M. BhattDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 22, 201914863099 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/863,099 09/23/2015 Nikhil M. Bhatt P14751USC1/7777000051720 1914 150004 7590 08/22/2019 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 EXAMINER YANG, JIANXUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2019 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): dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com patents.us@dentons.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NIKHIL M. BHATT1 ____________ Appeal 2018-000017 Application 14/863,099 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–22, all the pending claims in the present Application. Claims 11 and 12 are canceled (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral Hearing was waived. We AFFIRM. 1Appellant names Apple Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 4). Appeal 2018-000017 Application 14/863,099 2 The present invention relates generally to a wearable device that communicates with a host device (see Spec., Abstract). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A wearable device, comprising: a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; a touch-screen display; and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least: detect that the wearable device is being worn by a user; while the wearable device is in a first position with respect to the user: maintain a backlight of the touch-screen display in an off-state; and determine, based at least in part on sensor data from one or more sensors of the wearable device, that the wearable device has moved from the first position with respect to the user to a second position that is viewable by the user; in accordance with the determination that the wearable device has moved from the first position to the second position: maintain the backlight of the touch-screen display in the off-state; and determine that the wearable device has been rotated to a third position that is viewable by the user and is substantially at a same height as the second position; and in accordance with the determination that the wearable device has been rotated from the second position to the third position, transition the backlight of the touch-screen display of the wearable device to an on-state. Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 1–10 and 13–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winkler (US 2013/0222270 A1, Aug. 29, 2013) and Fitzgerald (US 2009/0195497 A1, Aug. 6, 2009). Appeal 2018-000017 Application 14/863,099 3 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Winkle and Fitzgerald collectively teaches or suggests the wearable device has moved from the first position with respect to the user to a second position that is viewable by the user . . . [and] maintain the backlight of the touch-screen display in the off- state, as set forth in claim 1? Appellant contends that “as described by Fitzgerald, if the device is within all of the noted viewable ranges (which are not physiologically impossible), the display would be active” (App. Br. 17), and “Appellant’s display is configured to be off in both the first position and the second position, where (as claimed) the second position is ‘viewable by the user’” (id. at 18). Appellant further contends that “the device in Fitzgerald would be active in at least the second and third positions, which are both ‘viewable by the user’ . . . as such, Fitzgerald would have no need to ‘transition the backlight . . . to an on-state’ according to ‘the wearable device [being] rotated . . . to [a] third position” (id.). We disagree with Appellant. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. The Examiner finds that Fitzgerald “firstly, determine a reference display orientation (Fig. 4, step 400, i.e., an angular position, read[s] on ‘first position’)” (Ans. 26); Fitzgerald then discloses “the display is changed from Appeal 2018-000017 Application 14/863,099 4 the reference orientation (‘first position’) but is found (by tracking) not within the above predetermined angular position, (i.e., in an angular position that reads on ‘second position’)” (id. (emphasis added)); and finally Fitzgerald teaches “[o]nly when the display orientation is changed to a predetermined angular position within a range (‘rotational angle range in each of x, y, and z axes,’ Fig. 4, step 404) viewable by a user (read[s] on ‘third position’)” (id.). In other words, the Examiner’s findings associate the claimed “second position” with a position in Fitzgerald that is removed from the reference orientation position and very near the predetermined range of angular positions. Also, the Examiner emphasizes that in Fitzgerald “[t]he device is viewable by a user in the [aforementioned] ‘second position’ and . . . the display of the device in the ‘third position’ is viewable by the user” (Ans. 27). Stated differently, the Examiner concedes that “the display in the ‘second position’ [of Fitzgerald] is not viewable by the user even though the device (not the display) is viewable by the user in the ‘second position’” (id.). As such, the Examiner interprets claim 1 as merely requiring that the device itself be viewable at the second position, not necessarily the display of the device, and that the display needs to be in the off-state in this position, which the Examiner finds is taught in Fitzgerald. We agree with the Examiner. We find that claim 1, as written, fails to clearly require that it is the touch-screen display that is viewable, in the second position. The Examiner interprets claim 1 as requiring the wearable device to be viewable in the Appeal 2018-000017 Application 14/863,099 5 second position, and Appellant appears to be arguing that the touch-screen display of the wearable device must be viewable at the second position. Appellant’s Specification discloses: Certain embodiments relate to facilitating user operation of a wearable device, e.g., by automatically activating a user interface of the wearable device in response to an event indicating that a user is likely to begin using the wearable device. For example, the wearable device can have a motion sensor that it can use to detect a motion characteristic of a user moving the wearable device into a viewing position. In the case of a wrist-worn device, for instance, the characteristic motion can correspond to a motion that moves the user’s wrist into the user’s line of sight. Spec. ¶ 12. In other words, the present invention maintains the touch-screen display of a wearable device in an off-state until the wearable device has moved to and rotated from a viewable second position to a viewable third position. Although Appellant’s Specification suggests having the “display” in the line of sight of the user, and we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We interpret claim 1 to merely require that the wearable device has moved and is viewable by the user, not necessarily the display on the device. Thus, we find that the Examiner’s interpretation of Appeal 2018-000017 Application 14/863,099 6 claim 1 is reasonable, i.e., the wearable device is viewable in the second position. With that in mind, the Examiner finds that Fitzgerald teaches “[a] motion tracking process . . . that the (n-1)th display angular measurement point (i.e., ‘second position’) is not within the above predetermined angular position so that the display is determined to remain off” (Ans. 26), and “[a]s long as the motion tracking or measurement is conducted reasonably fast, the (n-1)th measurement point (i.e., ‘second position’) and the nth measurement point (i.e., ‘third position’) can be substantially close in an x/y/z coordinate system” (id. at 27). We agree with the Examiner that the claimed “the wearable device has moved from the first position with respect to the user to a second position that is viewable by the user” reads on the aforementioned teachings of Fitzgerald. We also find sufficient the Examiner’s aforementioned interpretation of the claimed “a third position that is viewable by the user and is substantially at a same height as the second position” (emphasis added). Appellant further contends that “even if, arguendo, the angle ranges where the same as Appellant’s first and second positions . . . Fitzgerald still fails to describe the specific motion and rotation of Appellant’s claim 1 . . . the Examiner appears to believe that Fitzgerald only teaches two positions” (App. Br. 20), and Appellant contends that it “is unable to find any reference in Fitzgerald to three different spatial locations” (id. at 20–21). For the same reasons noted supra, we find Appellant’s contentions unavailing, given that the Examiner has shown a first, a second, and a third position consistent with the claimed invention. Appeal 2018-000017 Application 14/863,099 7 Appellant further contends that in the cited portion of Fitzgerald “Appellant is unable to see how this discloses ‘transition[ing] the backlight . . . to an on-state,’ according to ‘the wearable device [being] rotated . . . to the third position’” (App. Br. 21). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the claimed “rotated from the second position to the third position, transition the backlight of the touch-screen display of the wearable device to an on- state” reads on Fitzgerald’s “nth display angular measurement point” (see Ans. 27; see also Fig. 4). For example, Fitzgerald discloses that “[t]he display 18 is enabled when the device 10 is within a viewable range . . . a predefined rotational angle range . . . . Enabling the display 18 can take the form of turning on the display 18” (see Fitzgerald ¶ 48). This portion of Fitzgerald suggests that the display is turned on automatically. Thus, we find unavailing Appellant’s further contention that “the device of Fitzgerald requires the user to touch the screen in order to activate the display” (see App. Br. 25), given that this feature is not explicitly required for each and every embodiment, albeit for some embodiments, e.g., if the display is facing the ground (see Fitzgerald ¶ 58). Appellant also contends that “Winkler fails to remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Fitzgerald” (App. Br. 26). We find this contention unavailing given that there are no deficiencies found in Fitzgerald. For at least the reasons noted supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 15, as Appellant has not sufficiently distinguish any limitations found therein (see App. Br. 27–48). As for Appellant’s argument regarding the dependent claims (see id. at 48–51), we Appeal 2018-000017 Application 14/863,099 8 find that Appellant has not sufficiently distinguished the claimed features from the teachings identified in Fitzgerald (combined with Winkler) as presented by the Examiner. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation