15015683 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

Ex Parte Galu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2018

15015683 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/015,683 02/04/2016 23494 7590 11/02/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James Joseph Galu JR. 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. TI-75824 2706 EXAMINER LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2018 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES JOSEPH GALU JR., THOMAS BRIAN OLSON, and MICHAEL WAYNE ALLEN Appeal2018-004013 Application 15/015,683 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, SHARON PENICK, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 8. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants' Brief ("Br.") identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in interest. Br. 3. 2 The rejection of claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 was withdrawn by the Examiner in the Answer. Ans. 3. Appeal2018-004013 Application 15/015,683 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter is directed to a generating secure state indicator for a handheld device using a light pipe to illuminate a mode indicator using colored light generated by pixels on the display. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for operating a handheld device, the method compnsmg: receiving a command by the handheld device to enter a defined mode of operation; performing an operation by the handheld device to enter the defined mode of operation; setting one or more specific pixels of a plurality of pixels of a display of the handheld device to a predefined color indicative of the defined mode of operation; and illuminating a mode indicator on the handheld by transporting light generated by the one or more specific pixels to the mode indicator. App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). REJECTION Claims 1, 3---6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wells (US 2009/0143141 Al, published June 4, 2009). Final Act. 2-4. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding Wells discloses "illuminating a mode indicator on the handheld by transporting light generated by the one or more specific pixels to the mode indicator" as recited in claim 1? 2 Appeal2018-004013 Application 15/015,683 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Wells. Wells generally discloses a "multiplayer gaming table system 100 with an electronic display." Spec. ,r 87. Relevant here, the Examiner finds Wells discloses "illuminating a mode indicator on the handheld by transporting light generated by the one or more specific pixels to the mode indicator" because: [T]he gaming table may include handheld electronic devices as stated in paragraph [O 111]. The device has light pipe for transporting light generated by specific pixels to the display as discussed in para. [0090] to the mode indicator to display the device's mode as taught in para. [0107]. Ans. 4. Appellants argue the Examiner has erred because the system disclosed is a gaming table and not a handheld device. Br. 8. We agree with Appellants. Anticipation is a test of strict identity. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top- US.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002). That is, to meet the strict identity test for anticipation, all elements must be disclosed in exactly the same way as they are arranged or combined in the claim. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the Examiner finds Wells discloses the recited "handheld device" because it describes an embodiment in which "the gaming table may include wireless audio, video, and/or data communication to various types of mobile or handheld electronic devices." Ans. 4 (citing Well ,r 111). The description cited by the Examiner indicates a handheld device can connect via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi so that the gaming table recognizes the as they 3 Appeal2018-004013 Application 15/015,683 approach, and can customize aspects of the gaming table based on the player's preferences. Although Wells discloses that when a player approaches the gaming table with a handheld device, "light pipes (e.g., associated with the player's player station) automatically morph into the player's favorite color," those light pipes are not in the handheld device, but instead change the illumination of the gaming table. For Wells to anticipate claim 1, the mode indicator that is illuminated must be within the handheld device. But a gaming table is not identical to a "handheld device," and as we noted above, anticipation is a strict identity test. Thus, the Examiner's finding that Wells discloses "illuminating a mode indicator on the handheld by transporting light generated by the one or more specific pixels to the mode indicator" is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(2). For the same reason, we also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 6, also directed to a "handheld device," as well as the remaining claims which depend therefrom. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(2). REVERSED 4