Ex Parte Boettcher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2016

12825142 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/825,142 06/28/2010
26183 7590 03/14/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (APPLE)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jesse Boettcher
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
18962-0657001/P9214US1 1160
EXAMINER
SASINOWSKI, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JESSE BOETTCHER, JEFFERY T. LEE, and ARAM LINDAHL
Appeal2014-005109
Application 12/825,142
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-22, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple, Inc. App. Br.
1.
Appeal2014-005109
Application 12/825,142
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' present patent application relates to providing an
alternative human interface for an electronic device to maintain a desired
level of interactivity based on environmental factors. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A small form factor electronic device, comprising:
and
a processor;
an interface engine in communication with the processor;
a sensor coupled to the processor arranged to:
detect at least one environmental factor, and
pass an indication of the detected environmental
factor to the processor, wherein the processor and the
interface engine cooperate to:
determine that an environment of the
electronic device has changed based on the
indication of the detected environmental factor,
identify an updated human interface in
response to determining that the environment has
changed,
determine that a level of interactivity
corresponding to the updated human interface is at
least greater than a threshold level of interactivity,
and
cause the small form factor electronic device
to present the updated human interface only if the
level of interactivity corresponding to the updated
human interface is at least greater than the threshold
level of interactivity.
2
Appeal2014-005109
Application 12/825,142
The Examiner ;s Rejections
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Hiles (US 7,581,188 B2; Aug. 25, 2009). See Final Act. 2-
6.
Claims 2--4, 9, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hiles and Hassan (US 7 ,552,349 B2; June 23, 2009). See
Final Act. 7-9.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hiles. See Final Act. 2-6. Hiles discloses an electronic
device that monitors its environment and analyzes environment data to
determine an optimal user interface mode. See Hiles Fig. 2. Hiles discloses
changing the user interface mode to the optimal user interface mode, if
necessary. See id. Once the user interface mode is set, Hiles compares
environmental conditions against predefined conditions to determine
whether additional changes to the interface should be made. See id. For
example, if the device is in automobile mode, the device may measure its
velocity and only display calendar appointment information when the
velocity indicates the automobile is moving very slowly or is stopped. See
Hiles 6:4-23.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Hiles because Hiles does not disclose determining a "level of
interactivity" or comparing a level of interactivity to a "threshold level of
interactivity." See App. Br. 5-7. In particular, Appellants argue Hiles'
context conditions do not define any level of interactivity as required by the
3
Appeal2014-005109
Application 12/825,142
claim. App. Br. 6. Appellants further argue Hiles discloses determining
whether detected conditions match defined context conditions, but does not
disclose determining whether these conditions exceed a threshold level of
interactivity. App. Br. 6-7.
The Examiner responds that Hiles teaches comparing a user interface
to a level of interactivity. Ans. 2 (citing Hiles Fig. 2 (steps 58 and 64)). The
Examiner argues there is an inherent interactivity threshold because Figure 2
illustrates that it is determined whether the new interface has sufficient
interactivity. Ans. 2 (citing Hiles Fig. 2 (step 64)).
We disagree with the Examiner's finding that Hiles discloses "an
updated user interface that is then compared to a level of interactivity." Ans.
2 (citing Hiles Fig. 2 (steps 58, 64)). Hiles discloses updating the selected
user interface if detected conditions match pre-defined conditions. See Hiles
Fig. 2 (steps 62, 64, 66, 68). The comparison at steps 62 and 64 does not
involve the user interface or a level of interactivity, as found by the
Examiner. See Ans. 2 (citing Hiles Fig. 2 (steps 58, 64)). Instead, this
comparison involves the detected context conditions (the claimed
"environmental factors") and predefined context conditions. See Hiles Fig.
2, 6:4 7-61. Because claim 1 recites comparing a level of interactivity with a
threshold level of interactivity and not comparing the environmental factors
against a threshold, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred
finding Hiles discloses comparing a "level of interactivity" to a "threshold
level of interactivity."
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Therefore,
4
Appeal2014-005109
Application 12/825,142
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, independent claims 8, 12, 16, and
20, which recite similar limitations, and claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21,
and 22 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
5