Ex Parte Alameh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14829107 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/829,107 08/18/2015
138908 7590 07/31/2018
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group
(MM Files)
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rachid M. Alameh
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.
MM01304 6640
EXAMINER
CHOW,WINGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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 RACHID M. ALAMEH, SAMBHA VI JAY A VELAN,
PAD MAJ A PUTCHA, PAUL STEUER, and
ARIEL P. SUNDEL 1
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, Motorola Mobility LLC is the real party in
interest. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to detecting whether an electronic device is in
a repository container. Abstract. As an example, Appellants describe
detecting whether a cell phone is in a purse as a function of a combination of
factors including light, touch, and temperature. See e.g. Spec. ,r 32; Figs. 7,
8, and 10. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation italicized,
is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling an electronic device, comprising:
detecting, with one or more sensors, the electronic device
is disposed within a repository container as a function of at least:
an intensity of received ambient light is below a
predefined threshold;
an absence of touch sensor actuation along a housing of
the electronic device; and
an approximately common temperature occurring at both
a first location of the electronic device and a second location of
the electronic device; and
performing, by one or more processors operable with the
one or more sensors, a control operation in response to the
electronic device being disposed within the repository container.
2 We refer to the Specification filed August 18, 2015 ("Spec."); the Final
Office Action, mailed June 21, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed
Sept. 14, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 18, 2017
("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 11, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Ray
Noble
US 2008/0036591 Al Feb. 14, 2008
US 9,075,435 Bl July 7, 2015
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Noble and Ray. Final Act. 5-16.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-16) and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-7) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Detecting a Device is in a Container by Approximately
Common Temperature at Two Locations of the Device
Appellants contend Noble's temperature difference between front and
back thermal sensors determines whether the device is close enough to the
user for the user to feel device vibration, not whether the device is in a
container as a function of approximately common temperature, as required
by the disputed limitation of representative claim 1. App. Br. 15-16; Reply
Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds Noble teaches using a comparison between
temperatures measured by thermal sensors on the front and back of a device
3
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
to determine the environment in which the device is located. Final Act. 5-6
(quoting language from Noble col. 8, 11. 51-57); see also Final Act. 4 (citing
Noble cols. 8 and 9, which describe detection when the front and back
temperature differences are above and below a threshold). The Examiner
finds that the thermal sensor facing a user will read a higher temperature
than ambient temperature detected by the opposing sensor facing away from
the user thereby indicating proximity of the device to the user. Ans. 6
(quoting Noble col. 8, 11. 51---62). The Examiner concludes that "Noble fully
disclose[ s the] claim I limitation language [ of] 'an approximately common
temperature occurring at both a first location of the electronic device and a
second location of the electronic device'." Id.
Appellants' contention is not persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Noble describes that when temperatures at the front and back thermal
sensors are approximately equal, such a condition indicates a user is unlikely
to feel device vibration because there are too many layers of insulation
between the user and the device, e.g., the device is not in close contact with
the user such as when in the user's pocket. Noble col. 8, 11. 45-51.
Furthermore, Noble describes when the difference between the front and
back thermal sensors is below a threshold (i.e., the device is located distant
from the user), the user is unlikely to feel vibrations so that sound instead of
vibrations, is used. Noble col. 9, 11. 1--4; compare Noble Fig. 3B with Noble
Fig. 3A (showing when the device is insulated from the user by being in a
purse, or container, the device uses sound, instead of vibration). That is,
Noble teaches that an insufficient temperature difference between front and
back thermal sensors indicates there are too many layers of insulation
between the user and the device because, for example, the device is in a
4
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
purse or other container. See esp. Noble Fig. 3B. Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner in finding Noble teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
claim 1.
We also are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that "[t]he only
thing that Noble teaches using a temperature difference for is determining
'that the device is in close enough contact with the user such that the user
may be able to feel device vibration' or 'that the user may be too far from
the device to feel device vibration."' App. Br. 16 (citing Noble col. 8, 11. 64--
65, col. 9, 11. 2-3). Logically, if the device is in such close contact with the
user that the user could feel device vibrations, the device is unlikely to be
disposed within a repository container. Therefore, a temperature difference
below a threshold value is indicative that the device is not located very close
to the user and, instead, may be disposed in a repository container such as a
purse as disclosed by Appellants (see Spec. ,r 27).
Furthermore, Appellants' contention that Ray does not teach or
suggest using temperature to determine whether a device is in a container
(App. Br. 17) is not persuasive because it fails to address the Examiner's
findings concerning Noble. That is, Appellants' contention ignores the
Examiner's finding that Noble's determination that a device is positioned in
a location insulated from the user (e.g., being in a bag as shown in Fig. 3B)
based on a temperature comparison (Final Act. 4, citing Noble cols. 8 and 9)
teaches or suggests this disputed limitation.
Detecting a Device is in a Container by Three Specific Factors
Appellants further contend none of Noble's exemplary combinations
teach or suggest using Appellants' specific combination of three factors (i.e.,
5
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
light, touch, and temperature), even though Noble discloses multiple factors
including the presently claimed factors (see App. Br. 12-14; see App.
Br. 14--15 (for summary of six factors); Ans. 5 (finding temperature to be
Noble's seventh criteria or factor)). Appellants' contention is unpersuasive
because "obviousness is not determined by what the references expressly
state[,] but by what they would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in
the art." In re DeLisle, 406 F.2d 1386, 1389 (CCPA 1969). Therefore, we
disagree with Appellants' contention because the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Noble reasonably suggests determining the device is disposed in
a container based on the following factors: ( 1) ambient light (Final Act. 6,
(quoting Noble col. 15, 11. 6-9 for using a light detecting element to
determine whether the device is exposed to ambient light or in complete
darkness); see also Ans. 4, concurring with App. Br. 15 (that Noble
determines whether a device is in a container by ambient light)); (2) touch
(Final Act. 6, quoting col. 2, 1. 60-col. 3, 1. 5 (for using touch sensor data to
determine whether the user is holding the device or whether the device is in
bag); see Ans. 3, concurring with App. Br. 14--15 (that Noble determines
whether a device is in a container by touch)); and (3) approximately
common temperature (see discussion supra).
Furthermore, Noble describes various factors or techniques useful in
determining whether a device is in a container (see, e.g., App. Br. 14--15,
(listing six factors that Noble can use for this determination)), along with
using temperature differences (e.g., Noble col. 8, 1. 45---col. 9, 1. 5), and, as
acknowledged by Appellants, that these factors may be aggregated (see App.
Br. 12, citing Noble col. 2, 1. 52---col. 3, 1. 9). Thus, by aggregating all
disclosed techniques for determining whether a device is in a container, as
6
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
suggested by Noble, the three argued factors or techniques based on light,
touch, and temperature are included. As claim 1 is not limited to only the
argued functions to the exclusion of others, Noble thereby teaches or
suggests the claimed detecting step.
Furthermore, Appellants fail to provide evidence that the various
combinations of Noble's disclosed factors for detecting device location in a
bag yields anything other than predictable results. When a claimed
combination only unites familiar elements with no change in their respective
functions, the claimed combination is likely to be obvious when it does no
more than yield predictable results. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,416 (2007) (the "combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results."). Therefore, we find the Examiner's proffered
combination of familiar prior art elements according to their established
functions would have conveyed a reasonable expectation of success to a
person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. We further find the
Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to
justify the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants' Impermissible Hindsight Argument
Appellants also contend the Examiner uses impermissible hindsight
because the Examiner relies upon Appellants' Specification. App. Br. 17-
18; Reply Br. 7.
We find no error. The cited portion of the Final Action refers to the
Specification for purposes of claim interpretation and in evidencing that
Noble's temperature sensors are comparable to those disclosed by
7
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
Appellants. The Examiner does not rely upon Appellants' disclosure in
concluding the combination of Noble and Ray would have been obvious. As
such, we do not discern any improper hindsight reconstruction of the
invention using Appellants' own disclosure as a template. Concerning the
combination of Noble and Ray, we note
Any judgment on obviousness is ... necessarily a reconstruction
based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure,
such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F .2d 1392, 1395 (CCP A 1971 ); see also Radix Corp.
v. Samuels, 13 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (D.D.C. 1989) ("[A]ny obviousness
inquiry necessarily involves some hindsight."); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds ... must
[include] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness."), cited with approval in KSR,
550 U.S. at 418. Here, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
Final Act. 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
8
Appeal2018-001902
Application 14/829,107
AFFIRMED
9