2020000748 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021)

Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 2021

2020000748 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021)

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. 14/813,002 07/29/2015 Pranav Mistry 082499.0117 5000 121588 7590 04/30/2021 Baker Botts L.L.P./Samsung 1001 Page Mill Road Building One SUITE 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1007 EXAMINER PATEL, HIREN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2196 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2021 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): Cal-PTOmail@bakerbotts.com PTOmail1@bakerbotts.com patent@samsung.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PRANAV MISTRY and SAJID SADI Appeal 2020-000748 Application 14/813,002 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 14, 15, 17–20 and 23–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000748 Application 14/813,002 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to a wearable computing device. Spec., Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus comprising: a computing device comprising a device body, and one or more sensors comprising an accelerometer, wherein the device body comprises one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory comprises instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions to: initiate transmission of a request, to one or more other devices, requesting the one or more other devices to generate one or more predetermined vibration patterns; measure, by the accelerometer, one or more vibrations generated by a first one of the one or more other devices; compare the vibrations measured by the accelerometer with the one or more predetermined vibration patterns; in response to a determination that the vibrations measured by the accelerometer correspond to the one or more predetermined vibration patterns, establish a pairing between the computing device and the first one of the one or more other devices; and communicate with the first one of the one or more other devices in response to a successful pairing. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Narayanaswami US 6,556,222 B1 Apr. 29, 2003 Brady US 2006/0253010 A1 Nov. 9, 2006 Flinchem US 2007/0141989 A1 June 21, 2007 Fadell US 2009/0083847 A1 Mar. 26, 2009 Deisher US 2009/0169018 A1 July 2, 2009 Jones US 2013/0262305 A1 Oct. 3, 2013 Appeal 2020-000748 Application 14/813,002 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner makes the following rejections: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 10, 17, 23 102(b) Deisher 2, 4, 11 103(a) Deisher, Narayanaswami 3 103(a) Deisher, Narayanaswami, Brady 5, 12, 18 103(a) Deisher, Fadell 7, 14, 19 103(a) Deisher, Jones 7, 8, 15, 20, 24 103(a) Deisher, Fadell, Flinchem 25 103(a) Deisher, Flinchem ANALYSIS Appellant contends that Deisher fails to disclose the following limitation in claim 1, as well as similar limitations in claims 10 and 17: “initiate transmission of a request, to one or more other devices, requesting the one or more other devices to generate one or more predetermined vibration patterns.” Appeal Br. 7–11; Reply Br. 2–7. Appellant agues, among other things, that Deisher fails to disclose the claimed “predetermined vibration pattern.” Appeal Br. 9–11. Appellant proposes a claim construction of “predetermined” as “established in advance” or “determined beforehand.” Id. at 9 (citing dictionaries). According to Appellant, the plain claim language also requires “that the vibration patterns be determined before the other devices are requested to generate those vibration patterns.” Id. at 10. Under this construction, Appellant contends, Deisher does not disclose the disputed limitation because its “vibration profiles are determined entirely by the relative movement of two devices that are mechanically coupled.” Id. In Appellant’s view, “any such vibration profile is determined at the time of the mechanical coupling and movement, not before.” Id. at 11. Appeal 2020-000748 Application 14/813,002 4 The Examiner asserts that the Specification contradicts Appellant’s construction and does not support Applicant’s “narrow arguments as presented.” Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that the Specification “does not even mention transmitting a request to ‘generate a predetermined pattern’ as argued.” Id. Rather, “[i]t simply asks pairable device(s) to ‘send a vibration pattern’ by measuring its own vibration.” Id. And the Examiner finds that Deisher’s transmitted vibration profile “is considered as a predetermined vibration profile because the receiving device is expecting to receive [the] same vibration profile from the external device as the transmitted vibration profile.” Id. at 11. Appellant persuades us of Examiner error. We need not determine a precise claim construction because Deisher does not disclose the disputed limitation under any reasonable construction of “predetermined vibration pattern.” It is sufficient to note that we agree that the plain claim language requires “that the vibration patterns be determined before the other devices are requested to generate those vibration patterns.” Appeal Br. 10. The Specification supports this interpretation by explaining that a first device can pair with a second device “using the outer ring [e.g., of a watch] to enter a code or a particular pattern of rotations clockwise and/or counterclockwise as instructed by the device being paired to.” Spec. ¶ 250; see Appeal Br. 4 (relying on Spec. ¶ 250 as support for the disputed limitation). The first device can then calculate a vibration pattern of the second device. Spec. ¶ 250; see Reply Br. 6. In other words, the first device instructs—or requests—that the second device perform a specific predetermined vibration pattern before it is measured. Spec. ¶ 250. Appeal 2020-000748 Application 14/813,002 5 Deisher does not disclose the disputed limitation. Deisher teaches that “a user . . . swipes his handheld device 102 . . . across the pairing pad 112,” and “this movement . . . activates a contact switch that turns on a high sampling rate for accelerometers.” Deisher ¶ 14. Deisher’s device thereby “obtains a vibration profile as a result of mechanical coupling with the relative movement of an external device near the accelerometer.” Id. ¶ 7. In other words, swiping a handheld device in Deisher merely causes a vibration profile to be measured, not a predetermined vibration pattern to be requested. Thus, we agree with Appellant that Deisher does not disclose the claimed “initiate transmission of a request, to one or more other devices, requesting the one or more other devices to generate one or more predetermined vibration patterns.” Id. The Examiner has not relied on any of the other cited references to teach this element. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of the claim 1 and similar claims 10 and 17, and their dependent claims. We do not reach Appellant’s further allegations of error because we find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of all the pending claims. Appeal 2020-000748 Application 14/813,002 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 10, 17, 23 102(b) Michael, Deisher, 1, 10, 17, 23 2, 4, 11 103(a) Deisher, Narayanaswami 2, 4, 11 3 103(a) Deisher, Narayanaswami, Brady 3 5, 12, 18 103(a) Deisher, Fadell 5, 12, 18 7, 14, 19 103(a) Deisher, Jones 7, 14, 19 7, 8, 15, 20, 24 103(a) Deisher, Fadell, Flinchem 7, 8, 15, 20, 24 25 103(a) Deisher, Flinch, Flinchem 25 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 14, 15, 17–20 23–25 REVERSED