Ex Parte Boettcher et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 201612825142 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation