Eric Berdinis et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2020

14851431 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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.
14/851,431 09/11/2015 Eric Berdinis MM01428 5879
138908 7590 02/03/2020
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group
(MM Files)
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
WICKLUND, DANIEL PM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC BERDINIS, SHAKIL BARKAT, and RICKY J. HOOBLER
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Motorola Mobility
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to wearable electronic devices. Spec.
¶ 2.
Representative Claims
Representative claims 1 and 16 under appeal read as follows;
1. A smart watch, comprising:
a watch casing;
a display disposed along the watch casing, the display
comprising a plurality of pixels to present information on the
display;
one or more processors, operable with the display,
disposed within the watch casing; and
an energy storage device powering the one or more
processors;
the one or more processors:
when an amount of stored energy in the energy
storage device is above a predefined threshold, performing
a timekeeping function and at least one additional
function;
when the amount of stored energy in the energy
storage device falls below the predefined threshold,
disabling the at least one additional function while
continuing to perform the timekeeping function; and
presenting the at least the time of day on only every
other interlaced subset of the plurality of pixels.

16. A method of operating a smart watch, comprising
performing, with one or more processors of the smart
watch, a timekeeping function and at least one other function
while an amount of stored energy in an energy storage device is
above a predefined threshold; and
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
3
when the amount of stored energy in the energy storage
device falls below the predefined threshold, disabling the at least
one other function by disabling a first operating system of a
multi-operating system environment, while continuing to
perform the timekeeping function by switching from the first
operating system to a second operating system, the second
operating system configured to perform fewer functions than the
first operating system environment.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pattikonda (US 2014/0233356 A1; pub. Aug. 21,
2014) and NPL (Aguilar, Nelson, Android Gadget Hacks, Save Battery Life
on Android by Turning Off Pixels (No Root Required) (accessed December
16, 2016), http://android.wonderhowto.com/how-to/save-battery-life-
andrioid-by-turning-off-pixels-no-root-required-0158902/). See Non-Final
Act. 2–5.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pattikonda, NPL, and Ma (US 2015/0365892 A1; pub.
Dec. 17, 2015). See Non-Final Act. 5–8.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Pattikonda, NPL, and Pan (US 2015/0100621 A1; pub. Apr. 9, 2015).
See Non-Final Act. 8–9.
Claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pattikonda, NPL, and Hsaio (US 2016/0070326 A1; pub.
Mar. 10, 2016). See Non-Final Act. 10–12.
Claims 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ma and Pattikonda. See Non-Final Act. 12–14.
Claims 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pattikonda and Ma. See Non-Final Act. 14–17.
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
light of Appellant’s arguments in Appellant’s Appeal Brief that the
Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions and
concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as
explained below.
Independent Claim 1
The Examiner finds the combination of Pattikonda and NPL teaches
or suggests, inter alia, “presenting the at least the time of day on only every
other interlaced subset of the plurality of pixels,” as recited in claim 1. See
Final Act. 2–4. The Examiner further finds Pattikonda discloses, inter alia,
a wrist watch including a main body having a display, where the display is
configured to output time information and other information. See Final
Act. 2–3 (citing Pattikonda ¶ 59, Fig. 1); see also Pattikonda ¶¶ 45, 56. As
further found by the Examiner, NPL discloses a black pixel overlay, or
“mesh,” displayed on a display screen, where the rendering of the mesh
prevents the lightening of the associated pixels of the display screen, and
where the level of the mesh can be configured to different variants of
positions, including horizontal or vertical positions. See Final Act. 3 (citing
NPL 1–6). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to
modify the time display disclosed in Pattikonda so that the time is only
displayed on every other interlaced subset of the associated pixels of the
display screen as taught by NPL in order to save power and increase the
lifespan of the battery or other power source, an objective identified by both
Pattikonda and NPL. See Final Act. 3–4.
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
5
Appellant contends Pattikonda fails to include a presentation of time
where a portion of the presentation is presented on one subset, followed by
no time presentation on the next interlaced subset, followed by another
portion of the time presentation being presented on the next interlaced
subject. See Appeal Br. 11. We are not persuaded by this argument because
it addresses Pattikonda individually rather than the combination of
Pattikonda and NPL. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The
Examiner did not rely solely upon Pattikonda to teach the claimed
“presenting the at least the time of day on only every other interlaced subset
of the plurality of pixels.” Instead, as described above, the Examiner relied
upon Pattikonda for teaching the presentation of time data on a display, and
further relied upon NPL for teaching the presentation of data on only every
other interlaced subset of a plurality of pixels. Appellant’s argument does
not address the combination of Pattikonda and NPL, and, thus, is not
persuasive.
Appellant further contends NPL merely teaches turning off every one
in ten pixels, and does not teach interlacing every other subset or presenting
data on only every other interlaced subset of a plurality of pixels on a
display. See Appeal Br. 12–15. We are not persuaded by this argument
either. As correctly found by the Examiner, NPL discloses a plurality of
mesh arrangements in addition to “one out of every ten pixels,” including
horizontal or vertical meshes that teach or suggest the claimed “interlaced
subset of the plurality of pixels.” See Ans. 2 (citing NPL 4–6). Thus,
contrary to Appellant’s argument, NPL does teach presenting data on only
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
6
every other interlaced subset of a plurality of pixels on a display. In light of
the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Pattikonda and NPL teaches or suggests all the elements of
claim 1.
Independent Claim 16
The Examiner finds the combination of Ma and Pattikonda teaches or
suggests, inter alia, “when the amount of stored energy in the energy storage
device falls below the predefined threshold, disabling the at least one other
function by disabling a first operating system of a multi-operating system
environment, while continuing to perform the timekeeping function by
switching from the first operating system to a second operating system, the
second operating system configured to perform fewer functions than the first
operating system environment,” as recited in claim 16. See Final Act. 12–
16. The Examiner further finds Ma discloses, inter alia, a wearable device
(e.g., watch) that includes a non-power-saving operating system (i.e., “Big
Operating System” or “BOS”) and a power-saving operating system (i.e.,
“Little Operating System” or “LOS”), where the watch operates in a non-
power-saving mode (i.e., a normal mode) under the BOS, where the watch
operates in one of three power-saving modes (i.e., a suspend mode, a
hibernation mode, and a deep hibernation mode) under the LOS, and where
the watches switches from the BOS to the LOS when a system loading status
is less than a threshold value. See Final Act. 12–13, 15–16 (citing Ma
¶¶ 28–29, 31–34, Figs. 3, 4); see also Ma ¶ 35. As further found by the
Examiner, Pattikonda discloses, inter alia, a power management system for
a wrist watch that automatically disables high-power functions when an
amount of power stored in a battery of the wrist watch goes below a
predetermined level. See Final Act. 13–15 (citing Pattikonda ¶¶ 50, 60).
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
7
The Examiner indicates it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to start with the
watch disclosed in Ma and modify the watch to use an amount of stored
power in an energy storage device, as disclosed in Pattikonda, as a threshold
value to trigger switching from the non-power-saving operating system to
the power-saving operating system. See Final Act. 13. The Examiner
additionally explains it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to start with the wrist
watch disclosed in Pattikonda and modify the wrist watch disclosed in
Pattikonda to utilize separate operating systems for respectively operating in
a non-power-saving mode and a power-saving mode as disclosed in Ma. See
Final Act. 16.
Appellant contends Ma fails to teach a predefined energy storage
threshold, and thus, fails to teach switching operating systems when a
predefined energy storage threshold is reached. See Appeal Br. 16.
According to Appellant, Ma teaches switching operating systems based upon
system loading rather than a predefined energy storage threshold. See
Appeal Br. 17–19.
This argument is not persuasive because it addresses Ma individually
rather than the combination of Pattikonda and Ma. The Examiner did not
rely solely upon Ma to teach the claimed “when the amount of stored energy
in the energy storage device falls below the predefined threshold . . .
switching from the first operating system to a second operating system.”
Instead, as described above, the Examiner relied upon Ma for teaching
switching from a non-power-saving operating system to a power-saving
operating system when a system loading status is less than a threshold value,
and further relied upon Pattikonda for teaching disabling functions when the
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
8
amount of power stored in a battery goes below a predetermined level.
Appellant’s argument does not address the combination of Ma and
Pattikonda, and, thus, is not persuasive.
Appellant further contends the Examiner’s proposed modification of
the wearable device disclosed in Ma to include the features disclosed in
Pattikonda would change Ma’s principle of operation because Ma
specifically controls power consumption in its device based upon system
loading to reduce power consumption of a wearable device while retaining
the ability to deliver all features of the wearable device at all times, whereas
Pattikonda discloses completely disabling features in order to control power
consumption. See Appeal Br. 19–21. According to Appellant, the same is
true regarding the Examiner’s proposed modification of the device disclosed
in Pattikonda to include the features disclosed in Ma. See Appeal Br. 21–22.
We are not persuaded by this argument either. As described above,
Ma discloses switching from a non-power-saving operating system to a
power-saving operating system. See Ma ¶ 35. The operation of the system
in Ma does not change whether the switching is triggered by a system
loading status falling below a predefined threshold value or by an amount of
energy in a stored energy device falling below a predefined threshold value.
In light of the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Pattikonda and Ma teaches or suggests all the elements of
claim 16.
Conclusion
In view of the analysis above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Pattikonda with NPL or Ma teaches or
suggests the subject matter of in dependent claims 1 and 16. Accordingly,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1 and 16, nor of
Appeal 2018-004009
Application 14/851,431
9
dependent claims 2–15 and 17–20, for which Appellant presents no separate
arguments. See Appeal Br. 11.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 9, 10,
12, 13
103 Pattikonda, NPL 1, 4, 9, 10,
12, 13

2, 3, 6, 11 103 Pattikonda, NPL,
Ma
2, 3, 6, 11
5 103 Pattikonda, NPL,
Pan
5
7, 8, 14, 15 103 Pattikonda, NPL,
Hsaio
7, 8, 14, 15
16–20 103 Ma, Pattikonda 16–20
16–20 103 Pattikonda, Ma 16–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED