Ex Parte Yeh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

14037263 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

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.
14/037,263 09/25/2013 Sabrina Tai-Chen Yeh 201304962.01 9923
36738 7590 02/15/2018
ROrTTT7 fr ASSOPTATRS
EXAMINER
4420 Hotel Circle Court MALINOWSKI, WALTER J
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2018 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
John@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SABRINA TAI-CHEN YEH,
TAKASHI HIRONAKA, DAVID ANDREW YOUNG,
and STEVEN FRIEDLANDER
Appeal 2016-0073 801
Application 14/037,263
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 10, 12, 17, 19-23, and 26—31, which are all of the
pending claims. See App. Br. 9-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Sony Corp. is identified as the real party in interest. See App. Br. 2.i
Appeal 2016-007380
Application 14/037,263
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “digital ecosystems that are configured
for use when engaging in physical activity and/or fitness exercises.” Spec.
1. Claims 1, 5, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference:
1. A device comprising:
at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal
and that comprises instructions executable by at least one
processor for:
providing identifying data of a user automatically to
an exercise facility; providing identifying data of the user
automatically to at least a first exercise machine in the exercise
facility;
gathering data pertaining to physical activity of the
user while the user uses the first exercise machine;
using the identifying data of the user, accessing an
exercise plan of the user indicating a second exercise machine
different from the first exercise machine; and
based at least in part on the exercise plan, presenting
a prompt to the user of the first exercise machine to move to the
second exercise machine in the exercise plan.
References and Rejections
Claims 1,5, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Auto Setting at Gym, IBM, September 07, 2006, IP.com
number 000140323 (hereafter, “IBM”). Final Act. 7.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
IBM and Iori (US 2002/0108000 Al; Aug. 8, 2002). Final Act. 24.
2
Appeal 2016-007380
Application 14/037,263
Claims 3, 4, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 26—31 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over various combinations of IBM and
other prior art references. Final Act. 11—32.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. Any arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We are not persuaded the Examiner
erred; we adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we
add the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because “IBM fails to teach what is claimed, namely, that the workout plan .
. . references particular machines, as opposed to heart rate goals, exercise
times, and other machine-independent factors.” App. Br. 5. Appellants
contend that their “arguments do not turn on whether IBM teaches, or not, a
‘next’ machine in a vacuum, but rather that IBM fails to teach nay [sic]
machine in a plan and prompting a user to move to a machine identified in
the relied-upon plan.” Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
See Ans. 6. Claim 1 recites “the second exercise machine in the exercise
plan” which is “different from the first exercise machine.” Appellants argue
IBM’s “next workout station” is not the claimed “second exercise machine,”
3
Appeal 2016-007380
Application 14/037,263
because IBM chooses the next workout station “based on availability
without reference to the plan of IBM(3).” Reply Br. 1 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with the Examiner, however, that “[prompting customer to the
next workout station involves following the exercise plan.” Final Act. 4;
IBM page 1. Appellants do not persuade us the claim is distinguishable
from IBM’s workout plan choosing the second exercise machine based on
availability.
Further, IBM discloses that after the customer’s workout program is
applied to a first exercise station, the customer is “prompted to next workout
station that is available,” and the “[cjustomer can pause workout circuit at
any time using terminal located in facility.” IBM page 1. We find IBM’s
disclosure that the customer’s workout program will prompt the customer to
a next workout station, as part of workout circuit, to be tantamount to claim
1 ’s requirement of presenting a prompt to the user to move to the second
exercise machine in the exercise plan. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding IBM
discloses the limitations of independent claim 1.
B. Independent Claim 5
Independent claim 5 recites “determining whether a heart rate of the
user is within a heart rate target zone, wherein the heart rate target zone is
identified at least in part based on the identifying data of the user.”
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 5,
because “[t]he putative heart rate target zone of IBM does not necessarily
have to be based on the identifying data of the user. It could be (and for
4
Appeal 2016-007380
Application 14/037,263
liability purposes, plausibly would be) based on best practices for the
population in general.” Reply Br. 4—5.
We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Appellants’ Specification describes the target zone can be “indicated
in the user account.” Spec. 17; see also Spec. 14 (“the account data typically
includes . . . identifying data of the user, as well as . . . heart rate target
zones.”). Thus, contrary to Appellants’ assertions, the target zone does not
need to be tailored to the specific user; rather the claimed heart rate target
zone is the zone included in the user’s account along with the identifying
data. Contra App. Br. 6. The Examiner finds IBM similarly discloses such
a heart rate target zone per the customer’s account data, based on identifying
data of the user: “[bjased upon heart rate and blood pressure data terminal at
workstation might suggest that customer pause workout for safety reasons . .
. . Customer is identified at exercise station so server automatically sets
equipment or at terminal shows customer setting defined at step 3.” Final
Act. 10; see also Ans. 9; IBM page 1.
We therefore agree with the Examiner that, in light of the
Specification, IBM reasonably discloses the target heart rate zone identified
at least in part based on identifying data of the user. See Ans. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 5.
C. Independent Claim 12
Independent claim 12 recites “in response to the authenticating at the
entrance, providing a NFC [near field communication] code associated with
5
Appeal 2016-007380
Application 14/037,263
the first NFC element to the exercise machine,” and “unlocking the exercise
machine in response to the receipt of the NFC code from the first NFC
element while the first NFC element communicates with the exercise
machine.”
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12, because
“Iori’s system is not [] based on NFC codes” and “for all IBM teaches,
nothing is provided to any terminal at all.” Reply Br. 5.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of error because they attack
the references individually, and thus fail to address the Examiner’s findings.
See Ans. 14; see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”). Here, the Examiner correctly finds IBM
teaches or suggests providing an NFC code for access to a gym. See Ans.
12; IBM page 1 (“Gym patrons can be identified using but not limited to
RFID ... at each work station .... Customer walks into Gym and identifies
themselves with RFID, smartcard or other device at a terminal”). The
Examiner also correctly finds Iori teaches or suggests unlocking equipment
in gyms. See Ans. 13—14; Iori 172 (“integrated system 10 is particularly
indicated for use in automatic billing dispensing machines, equipment, e.g.
for gyms, machines that can be automatically set after users recognition, in
releasing locks without the use of keys and so on, in the authorisation of
payments, purchases, bank transfers or and the like.”).
Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner erred in finding
one skilled in the art would use the NFC codes of IBM with the equipment
unlocking system of Iori. See Final Act. 25. Thus, Appellants do not
6
Appeal 2016-007380
Application 14/037,263
persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of IBM and Iori
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 12.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 5, and
12. Appellants advance no further argument for dependent claims 3,4, 10,
17, 19-23, and 26—31. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—5, 10, 12, 17, 19—23,
and 26—31 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
7