Ex Parte Peterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14585222 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/585,222 12/30/2014 Kevin Charles Peterson
16621 7590 07/02/2018
Morris & Kamlay LLP / 030120
1911 N. Fort Myer Drive
Suite 1050
Arlington, VA 22209
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.
030120-201810US 5911
EXAMINER
TRAN, THANG DUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
pto@morriskamlay.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN CHARLES PETERSON, SOPHIE LE GUEN,
Y ASH MODI, and WLIA DEIULIIS 1
Appeal 2017-011848
Application 14/585,222
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the applicant, Google Inc., which the Appeal Brief identifies
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011848
Application 14/585,222
Invention
The Specification discloses a sensor package with a compass.
Abstract. The compass can be kept in a dormant mode until it receives a
request to provide data. Spec. ,r 25.
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
maintaining a compass in a sleep mode to conserve energy;
changing the sleep mode to an awake mode for the compass upon an
occurrence of one or more conditions selected from the group
consisting of:
a detection of a movement of an object by an accelerometer;
a detection of a change in a position of the object by a magnetic
sensor; and
a time of awakening based on a predetermined schedule,
wherein the compass consumes more energy in the awake mode than
in the sleep mode;
when the compass is in the awake mode, receiving an orientation
signal from the compass; and
determining a change in the orientation of the object based at least
upon the orientation signal from the compass.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dumas et al. (US 2014/0292481 Al; published Oct.
2, 2014) ("Dumas") and Nasiri et al. (US 2012/0007713 Al; published Jan.
12, 2012) ("Nasiri"). Non-Final Act. 2-18.
The Examiner rejects claims 7-12 and 24--29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, and Fadell et al. (US 2014/
0266669; published Sept. 18, 2014) ("Fadell"). Non-Final Act. 18-29.
2
Appeal 2017-011848
Application 14/585,222
The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, and Addy et al. (US 2003/0071739
Al; published Apr. 17, 2003) ("Addy"). Non-Final Act. 29-34.
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, Addy, and Yulkowski (US 2010/0242368
Al; published Sept. 30, 2010) ("Yulkowski"). Non-Final Act. 34--36.
The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, Addy, and Bergman et al. (US 2008/
0018474 Al; published Jan. 24, 2008) ("Bergman"). Non-Final Act. 36-37.
The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, Addy, and Fadell. Non-Final Act. 37-38.
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Dumas discloses use of a compass for proximity detection. See Non-
Final Act. 3 ( citing, e.g., Dumas ,r 181 ). Nasiri also discloses use of a
compass, but for use in a handheld device to stabilize a gyroscope bias in a
yaw direction. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g., Nasiri ,r 41). Nasiri further
discloses that the device can enter a sleep mode to reduce power
consumption. Non-Final Act. 6; see also Nasiri ,r 77; Ans. 3. Based on
these teachings and suggestions, the Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify Dumas to include steps
directed to maintaining a compass in a sleep mode to conserve energy and
changing the sleep mode to an awake mode for the compass upon an
occurrence of one or more conditions. See Non-Final Act. 5-6.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the "compass
disclosed by N asiri 'provid[ es] data for a microprocessor,' but N asiri does
not teach or suggest 'changing [a] sleep mode to an awake mode for the
3
Appeal 2017-011848
Application 14/585,222
compass upon an occurrence of one or more conditions.' " App. Br. 7.
Appellant argues that N asiri' s teaching "that a main processor of a handheld
device can be woken when it is picked up by a user ... is ... unrelated to
any change of state of a compass in such a device." Reply Br. 5.
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. Nasiri teaches having
device 1000 enter into a sleep mode and switch back to an active mode.
Nasiri ,r 77. However, the Examiner's findings do not show that the
device's compass enters a sleep mode. Rather Nasiri's compass is included
as part of inertial sensor module 1016, itself included as part of motion
processing unit 1012. Id. ,r 72; see also id. at Fig. 10. Importantly, Nasiri
states "motional processing unit 1012 remains running (i.e. active) when
handheld device 1000 is in the sleep mode and continues to monitor for any
motion commands." Id. ,r 77. This suggests that Nasiri's compass is not put
into a sleep mode when the device itself is in sleep mode, but is kept in an
active mode along with the motional processing unit in which the compass is
included. Thus, the cited teachings ofNasiri directed to handheld device
1000 changing to different modes of operation ( e.g., sleep or active) fail to
teach or suggest maintaining a compass in a sleep mode and changing the
sleep mode to an awake mode for the compass in the manner recited in claim
1.
Dumas teaches both the use of a compass for proximity detection
(Dumas ,r 181) and "a proximity sensor triggered wake-up operation" (id.
,r 149). However, the wake-up operation of Dumas relates to the use of a
proximity detector to wake up a radio rather than to wake up the proximity
4
Appeal 2017-011848
Application 14/585,222
detector's compass. Id. ,r 150. Therefore, the cited teachings of Dumas do
not cure the deficiency ofNasiri.
The Examiner does not show that the other cited references cure the
noted deficiency ofNasiri. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, or the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 2-29, which contain similar recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-29.
REVERSED
5