Andreas Kristensson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2020

2020000741 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020)

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.
13/549,293 07/13/2012 Andreas Kristensson PS11 0861US2 1002
23380 7590 11/02/2020
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 MAIN AVENUE
SUITE 1100
CLEVELAND, OH 44113-7213
EXAMINER
CROHN, MARK I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2020 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):
patents@tuckerellis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS KRISTENSSON,
MAGNUS ABRAHAMSSON, and GUNNAR KLINGHULT
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, GEORGE C. BEST, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 This Decision cites the following documents: Specification filed July 13,
2012 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed October 17, 2018 (“Final Act.”);
Appeal Brief filed May 14, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed
September 10, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed November 7, 2019
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11–13, 15, 17–19, 21, and
22. Appeal Br. 6–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to calibrating sensor devices,
and more particularly to a system and method for calibrating sensors
distributed across one or more consumer electronic devices. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 12):
1. A method comprising:
detecting, by a wireless charging platform, each of a first
electronic device and a second electronic device while both are
positioned on a charging surface of the wireless charging
platform, the first and the second electronic devices each
comprising a battery and a sensor;
communicatively coupling each of the first and the
second electronic devices via respective wireless
communications to the wireless charging platform;
receiving, by the wireless charging platform,
identification data comprising information identifying the first
and the second electronic devices and the respective sensors of
each of the first and second electronic devices;
reading, by the wireless charging platform, a current
reference calibration value associated with the sensor of the
second electronic device;

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Deep Science, LLC as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293

3
storing the current sensor reference calibration value in
the wireless charging platform; and
determining, by the wireless charging platform, the
current sensor reference calibration value is applicable to the
sensor of the first electronic device and setting a sensor
calibration parameter of the sensor in the first electronic device
based on the stored current reference calibration value while
wirelessly charging the battery of the first electronic device.
Claim 12 is also independent and recites a wireless charging platform
configured to perform similar steps as recited in claim 1. Id. at 13–14.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kappi et al.,
hereinafter
“Kappi”
US 2003/0115930 A1 June 26, 2003
Kirby et al.,
hereinafter
“Kirby”
US 2010/0194335 A1 August 5, 2010
Bluetooth https://web.archive.org/
web/20111004015739/
https://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Bluetooth
October 11, 2018
Mobile
Equipment
Identifier
https://web.archive.org/
web/20111018152550/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile
equipment identifier
October 11, 2018
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11–13, 15, and 17–
19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kirby, Kappi, and Bluetooth. Final Act. 3–13.
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293

4
2. The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kirby, Kappi, Bluetooth,
and Mobile Equipment Modifier. Final Act. 14.
OPINION
Rejection 1
We limit our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient for disposition
of this rejection.
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Kirby, Kappi, and Bluetooth, the
Examiner found, inter alia, that Kirby discloses a method including
detecting by a wireless charging platform, a first electronic device and a
second electronic device while both are positioned on a charging surface of
the wireless charging platform, and where the charging device is configured
to exchange data between the chargeable devices. Final Act. 3–4. The
Examiner also found Kirby discloses the charging device may download
software or firmware updates from a network to be installed on the charging
device or installed on another chargeable device. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner
further found Kirby discloses the charging device may be configured for
generating and updating a charging profile of an associated device. Id. at 7.
Regarding the step of “determining, by the wireless charging
platform, the current sensor reference calibration value is applicable to the
sensor of the first electronic device” (“the determining step”) recited in
claim 1, the Examiner found Kirby discloses that charging device 402 may
be configured to utilize one or more charging profiles of an associated
chargeable device, which indicates the electronic device has been
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293

5
determined for the application of the charging profile. Id. at 8 (citing Kirby
¶ 64).
The Examiner found that Kirby does not disclose the term “calibration
reference values.” Id. at 7. The Examiner found Kappi discloses consumer
devices such as mobile devices containing sensors and sensor calibration
reference values. Id. at 7–8. The Examiner determined it would have been
obvious to determine the devices available, according to the examples in
Bluetooth, in order to send calibrations in the system taught by Kirby in
view of Kappi, with the benefit of conserving resources by only sending
calibration data for available sensors. Id. at 8.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant acknowledges that Kirby discloses the exchange of data
files between a wireless charging station and chargeable devices and also
that a first chargeable device can establish a communication link with a
network to download a software or firmware update for a second chargeable
device that is transferred from the first device to a second device through a
charging station, but argues Kirby does not disclose a current reference
calibration value. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that as a result, Kirby
does not disclose the determining step of claim 1. Id.
Appellant contends Kappi discloses a first device may use the
acceleration measurement device in a second device to calibrate an
acceleration rate device in the first device using a specific calibration
method, which does not disclose setting a sensor calibration parameter of the
sensor in the first electronic device based on a stored (in the wireless
charging platform) current reference calibration value. Id. at 7, 9. Thus,
Appellant argues that even if Kirby were modified with Kappi, the
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293

6
combination does not disclose setting the sensor calibration parameter of the
first chargeable device with a corresponding assigned value from the second
device. Id. at 9.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in determining the method of claim 1, where a
wireless charging platform determines whether a current sensor reference
calibration value associated with a sensor of a second electronic device and
stored in the wireless platform is applicable to the sensor of the first
electronic device, would have been obvious in view of Kirby, Kappi, and
Bluetooth?
Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner’s finding
that Kirby’s charging device 402 may be configured to synchronize data
stored on the charging device with data on an associated chargeable device,
which data may include software or firmware updates, is not supported by
Kirby. The Examiner’s reliance on the combination of Kirby (for the
determining step as discussed above) and Kappi (for the proposition that
sensor reference calibration values of chargeable devices would have been
updated using Kirby’s charging system) is not sufficiently supported by the
prior art.
Kappi discloses a device, which may be a mobile device, for
calibrating a sensor, where a second device including an acceleration
measurement device may be fixed to a first device and recalibrate the
angular measurement device of the first device. Kappi ¶¶ 9, 30, 79, 81, 84;
Fig. 3. Kirby discloses data may transferred from a chargeable device 406 to
charging device 402, and then subsequently accessed. Id. ¶ 53. Kappi’s
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293

7
method involves recalibration of the angular measurement sensor of the first
device based on displacement of both devices and a comparison of angles of
displacement of both devices. Id. ¶ 15. In other words, Kappi does not use a
stored current sensor reference calibration value to recalibrate a first device.
Rather, Kappi discloses recalibrating a device based on a measured
calibration value for that device.
As discussed above, the Examiner relied on Kirby for the determining
step, but did not provide sufficient reasoning to explain how the individually
determined calibration values disclosed in Kappi teach or suggest a current
stored sensor reference calibration value. Thus, we do not find sufficient
rational underpinnings to support the reasoning supplied by the Examiner.
Thus, although we appreciate that Kirby’s wireless charging platform may
be configured to store and exchange different types of data, Kappi’s
disclosed method of calibration does not provide sufficient support for the
Examiner’s position that the combination of Kirby and Kappi would have
rendered the method of claim 1 obvious.
The Examiner emphasizes that Kappi is relied on for the specific
teaching of the communication of calibration reference values missing from
Kirby. Ans. 14. However, claim 1 requires the wireless charging platform
to determine whether the current sensor reference value associated with the
sensor of the second device, and stored in the wireless charging platform, is
applicable to the sensor of the first device. It is unclear how a general
reference to calibration values would suggest modifying Kirby to reach the
specific method recited in claim 1. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293

8
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))).
“A factfinder should be aware . . . of the distortion caused by hindsight bias
and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” Id. at
421.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2, 4, 6–9, 11–13, 15, and 17–19.
Rejection 2
Claims 21 and 22 depend from claims 1 and 12, respectively. The
Examiner additionally cited Mobile Equipment Identifier for particular
identification data recited in claims 21 and 22. Final Act. 14. Thus, the
Examiner’s reliance on Mobile Equipment Identifier does not remedy the
deficiencies identified above with respect to claim 1 and 12. Accordingly,
we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–9,
11–13, 15,
17–19
103(a) Kirby, Kappi, Bluetooth
1, 2, 4, 6–9,
11–13, 15,
17–19
21, 22 103(a)
Kirby, Kappi,
Bluetooth, Mobile
Equipment
Modifier
21, 22
Appeal 2020-000741
Application 13/549,293

9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 6–9,
11–13, 15,
17–19, 21,
22

REVERSED