Aurel Coza et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

13446937 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
13/446,937 04/13/2012 Aurel Coza 2483.2290000/MWR/RDC 1018
63504 7590 09/29/2020
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
FERNANDES, PATRICK M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AUREL COZA, CHRISTIAN DIBENEDETTO,
and JEFFREY ALLEN

Appeal 2020-000365
Application 13/446,937
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24, 26–29, and 106–109, which are
the only claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as adidas AG. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000365
Application 13/446,937

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to methods and systems for monitoring the
movement of the body of an individual engaged in an athletic activity or the
movement of a piece of athletic equipment used by the individual during
athletic activity.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An athletic activity monitoring method for use with a
sensor module that is physically coupled to an object during an
athletic activity conducted by a user, the athletic activity
monitoring method comprising:
the sensor module detecting movement of the object at a
first time;
the sensor module determining that the movement of the
object corresponds to a predetermined activation movement,
wherein the determination that the movement of the object
corresponds to a predetermined activation movement occurs
when a raw data value satisfies a threshold data value at the first
time;
the sensor module entering an active state in response to
the determination that the movement of the object corresponds to
the predetermined activation movement; and
upon the sensor module entering the active state, detecting
movement of the object at a second time,
wherein the detecting movement of the object at one of the
first time and the second time comprises determining a change in
the location of the object with respect to a magnetic vector of the
object, and
wherein the sensor module in the active state determines a
correlation between the movement of the object and an activity
metric at the second time by reference to a data structure having
magnetic field data.

Appeal 2020-000365
Application 13/446,937

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rakijas US 6,269,324 B1 July 31, 2001
Liberty US 2005/0174324 A1 Aug. 11, 2005
Crowley US 2009/0210078 A1 Aug. 20, 2009
Solinsky US 2010/0070193 A1 Mar. 18, 2010
Edis US 2010/0144414 A1 June 10, 2010
Czompo US 2010/0304754 A1 Dec. 2, 2010
Fu US 2010/0305480 A1 Dec. 2, 2010
Mayor US 2010/0307016 A1 Dec. 9, 2010
Jangle US 2011/0066383 A1 Mar. 17, 2011
Chen US 2011/0077865 A1 Mar. 31, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 8, 11–13, and 16–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jangle, Chen, Czompo, and Rakijas. Ans. 4.
Claims 7, 9, 14, and 108 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jangle, Chen, Czompo, Rakijas, and Solinsky. Ans. 7.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jangle, Chen, Czompo, Rakijas, and Mayor. Ans. 8.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jangle, Chen, Czompo, Rakijas, and Crowley. Ans. 9.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jangle, Chen, Czompo, Rakijas, and Liberty. Ans. 9.
Claims 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 106, and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jangle, Crowley, Edis, Chen, and Fu. Ans. 10.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jangle, Crowley, Edis, Chen, Fu, and Solinsky. Ans. 12.

Appeal 2020-000365
Application 13/446,937

4
Claim 109 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jangle, Crowley, Edis, Chen, Fu, Solinsky, Rakijas, and Czompo. Ans.
12.

OPINION
Obviousness
Rakijas
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues “that Rakijas
uses magnetic field vectors to determine changes in the background
magnetic field, but does not determine a ‘magnetic vector of the object.’”
Reply Br. 3. According to the Examiner, “[i]f vector magnetometers are
used to detect magnetic vector changes of an object it would therefore be a
‘magnetic vector of the object’ in some manner.” Ans. 14. Although the
Examiner is correct in a sense, this interpretation misconstrues the language
of the claim.
Claim 1 recites that the method is “for use with a sensor module that
is physically coupled to an object during an athletic activity.” Given this
recitation, the claim clearly pertains to determining the vector based upon
the sensor that is actually attached to the object. Furthermore, the
Specification discloses only embodiments that include direct tracking of the
object with a sensor contained thereon. As such the Examiner’s
interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification.
As to Rakijas itself, Appellant makes an apt analogy:
At base, Rakijas’s system can be compared to a group of wave
height sensors distributed across a lake. When a boat passes by
and creates a wake, the sensors register that the water height
rises. Using all the sensor data, the path of the boat through the
Appeal 2020-000365
Application 13/446,937

5
area can be mapped. But, a vector of the boat is not created. Just
like how the boat’s position is monitored but no boat vector is
created, Rakijas tracks magnetic field data but does not create –
or suggest the creation of – a magnetic vector of the object.
Reply Br. 4. Because Rakijas detects changes in the background magnetic
field rather than actually sensing changes in the object itself, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 or any of the claims dependent therefrom.
Fu
As to claim 23, Appellant argues that the Examiner has misconstrued
the term “profile data” to include Fu’s decision criteria. Reply Br. 5. As
Appellant points out, “the Examiner appears to ignore the fact that while the
profile data is different from the plurality of reference motions, the two are
‘associated,’ as recited in the claim.” Id. Appellant further notes that “Fu’s
method may change the decision criteria from plus/minus 1 to plus/minus
.5,” but “Applicants[’] method changes the underlying data.” Appeal Br. 19.
The Examiner responds by stating “that Appellant has never defined
profile data in the claims to be as specific as . . . Appellant intends.” Ans.
16. Although this may be true, in that the term “profile data” appears only in
the claims, the claims do make clear that the profile data and the reference
motions are related. Furthermore, Fu discloses changing the manner in
which the data is judged as explained above by Appellant. Fu expands or
contracts the range of acceptable data, but does not alter the underlying data
itself. Altering decision criteria is not the same as altering the actual data
related to the reference motions themselves. Appellant’s invention seeks to
more accurately describe the reference motions vis-à-vis the profile data
whereas Fu merely alters the decision criteria to accept larger or smaller
ranges of data. These are not the same concepts and therefore we agree with
Appeal 2020-000365
Application 13/446,937

6
Appellant that the Examiner erred in construing the term “profile data.” As
such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 or the claims
dependent therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8, 11–
13, 16–21
103 Jangle, Chen, Czompo,
Rakijas
1–6, 8,
11–13,
16–21
7, 9, 14, 108 103 Jangle, Chen, Czompo,
Rakijas, Solinsky
7, 9, 14,
108
10 103 Jangle, Chen, Czompo,
Rakijas, Mayor
10
15 103 Jangle, Chen, Czompo,
Rakijas, Crowley
15
22 103 Jangle, Chen, Czompo,
Rakijas, Liberty
22
23, 24, 26,
28, 29, 106,
107
103 Jangle, Crowley, Edis,
Chen, Fu
23, 24, 26,
28, 29,
106, 107
27 103 Jangle, Crowley, Edis,
Chen, Fu, Solinsky
27
109 103 Jangle, Crowley, Edis,
Chen, Fu, Solinsky,
Rakijas, Czompo
109
Overall
Outcome
1–24, 26–
29, 106–
109

Appeal 2020-000365
Application 13/446,937

7

REVERSED