Knowmadics, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2020005115 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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.
15/691,785 08/31/2017 Paul MAGUIRE 6564-5 7356
23117 7590 12/02/2021
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
HUSSAIN, TAUQIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL MAGUIRE, LISA CINNAMON,
CLAIRE OSTRUM, BRIAN O'TOOLE, STEVEN EDGETT and
CHARLES CORCORAN
___________

Appeal 2020–005115
Application 15/691,785
Technology Center 2400

____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 22–29 and 31–42
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 8–16. Claims 22, 36 and 38 are

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 26, 2020), the
Reply Brief (filed June 30, 2020), the Final Action (mailed November 29,
2019) and the Answer (mailed May 5, 2020), for the respective details.

2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.42(a). (“The word
‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint
inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45,
Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
2

independent. Claims 1–21 and 30 are canceled. See Claims Appendix. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellant:
The present invention broadly comprises crowd-sourced
computer-implemented methods and systems of collecting and
transforming portable device data. One embodiment of the
invention may be implemented as a system including an
electronic device including a sensor configured to collect data,
the device configured to begin collection of data based on a
command from a user of the electronic device; and a server
configured to issue a command to the electronic device to turn
on the sensor and transmit data collected by the sensor to the
server without any input by the user of the electronic device
when a condition is met.
Specification ¶5.

Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized)
22. A method of controlling a device including a processor operatively
coupled to a display, a wireless transceiver and at least one sensor to

or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies KNOWMADICS, INC., a corporation of
Herndon, Virginia as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3.

3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 22, 36 or 38 individually.
See Appeal Brief 13 (“claims 22, 36 and 38 and their dependent claims are
patentable over Laird, Pickering and Guy for at least the above reasons”).
Accordingly, we select independent claim 22 as representative. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same
ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the
Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide
the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup
Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
3

surreptitiously capture and wirelessly stream audio and/or visual information, the
method comprising:
(a) receiving at least one command;
(b) in response to receipt of the at least one command, controlling the
device to display a screen that masquerades device operation by concealing the
capturing and wirelessly streaming and instead shows a user interactive function
that is unrelated to the capturing and wirelessly streaming, and
(c) wirelessly streaming the captured audio and/or visual information
to a server while the screen is displayed,
wherein the user interactive function is a function of an application.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Guy GB 2401752 A November 17, 2004
Laird US 2005/0085257 A1 April 21, 2005
Pickering US 2012/0290665 A1 November 15, 2012

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 22–29 and 31–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laird, Pickering and Guy. Final Action 2–7.

ANALYSIS

on the basis of the selected claim alone.”).

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
4

Claims 22–26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34 and 36–42
Pickering discloses a prior art technique of “[p]reventing a passerby, a
friend, or a co-worker from viewing private, confidential, or potentially
embarrassing information that is displayed on a computer screen” by providing a
“‘boss button’ keystroke” for a computer game to “quickly remove the private
information from the screen.” Pickering ¶ 5. “When this ‘boss button’
keystroke is selected, the game pauses and displays a business application, such
as a spreadsheet, on the computer screen.” Pickering ¶ 5. Pickering “was cited
to show that [a] display screen can be masquerade[d] with [a] substituted display
which can be totally unrelated to the actual display on the screen.” Answer 4.
Thus, the Examiner finds Pickering’s “boss button” teaches or suggests the
limitation “in response to receipt of the at least one command, controlling the
device to display a screen that masquerades device operation by concealing the
capturing and wirelessly streaming and instead shows a user interactive function
that is unrelated to the capturing and wirelessly streaming.” Final Action 3.
The Examiner further determines that, “[Laird and Pickering] however are
silent on disclosing explicitly, wirelessly streaming the captured audio and/or
visual information to a server while the [masquerading] screen is displayed.
Wherein the user interface function is a function of an application.” Final
Action 4. The Examiner finds, “Guy discloses a similar concept as, wirelessly
streaming the captured audio and/or visual information to a server while the
[masquerading] screen is displayed” whereas “the user interface function is a
function of an application (Guy, page.10 lines 4-18[)], [and where the] mobile
device captures the picture along with location coordinates and audio sounds to a
remote server. Such capturing and transmitting is possible by using an
application and activating the function in the application.” Final Action 4. Guy
discloses:
Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
5

She may then put her phone in her pocket or bag, or hold it in her
hand, yet still have the device recording and transmitting any sounds
within reach of the microphone, together with any images captured
by the digital camera, until she decides to enter the appropriate
deactivation code into the keypad to cease the recording. She also
knows that if the man tries to force her to enter the code, she can
enter a dummy deactivation code instead, which will make the
device appear the same as if she had entered the correct code, yet the
device will continue recording.
Guy page 10, lines 8–14 (emphasis added).
Appellant contends that, “Guy discloses, while transmitting the data to the
server, simultaneously displaying the video data being transmitted, rather than
showing a user interactive function that is unrelated to the capturing and
wirelessly streaming.” Appeal Brief 9 (referencing Guy page 23, lines 8–13,
“The video data transmitted are simultaneously displayed on the device screen
13, enabling the user to monitor what video data are being transmitted.”).
Appellant argues, “Guy is silent with respect to recording and transmitting video
and sound data to the data storage facility while the particularly claimed screen
is displayed” and therefore “Guy fails to teach ‘wirelessly streaming the captured
audio and/or visual information to a server while the screen [that ... shows a user
interactive function that is unrelated to the capturing and wirelessly streaming] is
displayed,’ as recited by claim 22.” Appeal Brief 10.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Guy also
discloses:
In the event that an attacker forces the user to input the deactivating
code, the user may instead input a bogus deactivating code known
only to the user, which makes the device appear to have been
deactivated or switched off, yet the device continues recording and
transmitting images and data.
Guy, page 22, lines 6–9 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
6

Accordingly, Guy continues to wirelessly stream the captured audio
and/or visual information while a masquerading screen, that makes the device
appear to have been deactivated and thus is “unrelated to the capturing and
wirelessly streaming,” is shown on the device. Such a device is useful when a
criminal knows the device is recording and the user of the device wants the
criminal to think that the recording has stopped. See also Final Action 4 (“Such
device will prevent the criminals to attack on an individual carrying such
device”).
Moreover, even if Guy’s dummy deactivation screen were related to the
capturing and wirelessly streaming, the combination of Guy’s recording with
Pickering’s boss button still teaches this limitation by switching the display from
a recording application (as in Guy) to an unrelated application such as a
spreadsheet (as in Pickering). Answer 4, 6.
Appellant argues, “Pickering teaches displaying a business application
(such as a spreadsheet), rather than displaying any user interactive function.”
Appeal Brief 12; see Pickering ¶ 5. Appellant further argues, that:
Even if, for the sake of arguments, that Pickering’s business
application could provide a user interactive function, it would not
have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Guy in view of Pickering to arrive at the claimed feature.
Implementing this feature in Guy to display a business application,
rather than displaying a screen pretending that the recording is
ceased while streaming recorded information to a server,
undermines a primary purpose in Guy- keeping the same screen and
pretending that a correct deactivation code has been entered by
entering a dummy deactivation code.
Appeal Brief 12.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because we
find Appellant’s arguments are without supporting evidence and therefore
conclusory. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
7

(attorney argument is not the kind of factual evidence required to rebut a
prima facie case of obviousness); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence”). Further, Claim 22 requires the screen “shows a user interaction
function that is unrelated to the capturing and wirelessly streaming” and in the
same manner, Pickering displays a masquerading screen that discloses a user
interaction function, such as a business application unrelated to a computer
game, when the computer game pauses. See Pickering ¶ 5. Appellant
provides no explanation why a business application such as a spreadsheet
lacks any user interactive function. Guy further discloses that the capturing
and wireless streaming continues while the masquerading screen is
displayed. See Guy page 22, lines 6–9.
With respect to reasons for the combination, the Examiner determines that
Pickering’s boss button is useful “to provide a secret transmission under extreme
situations e.g. around criminal activities,” such as when a criminal does not
know you are recording. Final Action 3–4; see also Answer 7 (“in the event of
emergency, spying, internal auditing, undercover work and many more”). Guy
similarly suggests recording secretly. E.g., Guy, page 10, lines 8–11 (“She may
then put her phone in her pocket or bag, or hold it in her hand, yet still have the
device recording and transmitting any sounds within reach of the microphone,
together with any images captured by the digital camera”). Contrary to
Appellant’s argument, Guy must be considered for all its teachings, not just its
dummy code.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that “the alleged combination of
Pickering and Guy still fails to teach ‘wirelessly streaming the captured audio
and/or visual information to a server while the screen is displayed,’ as recited by
Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
8

claim 22 (and similarly claims 36 and 38)” is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
See Appeal Brief 13.
We sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of independent claims 22,
36 and 38, as well as, dependent claims 23–26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40
and 42 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 14.
Dependent claims 27, 35 and 41
Appellant contends, “Claim 27 recites that ‘the user interactive function is
a gambling function of a slot machine game application.’ Claims 35 and 41 also
recite similar subject matter.” Appeal Brief 13. Appellant argues that
“Pickering does not disclose displaying a gambling function of a game
application” and “Guy fails to teach, upon receipt of the dummy deactivation
code, transmitting captured audio and/or visual information to a server while
displaying a screen that shows a gambling function of a slot machine game
application.” Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds in regard to claims 27, 35
and 41 that the “limitations merely describes the variations that can be modified
as per design choice or as a software component.” Final Action 5–7.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error because the
masquerading screen variation does not influence the masquerading screen
function to conceal the capturing and streaming operation of the device and
therefore would have been an obvious modification to an artisan in view of the
cited prior art. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“As
our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). We sustain the Examiner
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 27, 35 and 41 not argued separately.
See Appeal Brief 15.
Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
9

Dependent claim 32
Appellant contends:
Claim 32 (depending on claim 31) recites that “the condition
is that the device is moved within a specific distance of a location,”
while claim 31 recites that the command (as claimed in claim 22) is
automatically issued by a server when a condition is met in
accordance with a rule established on the server.
Appeal Brief 15.
The cited section of Laird discloses that the campus management
server proposes one or more routes for providing a wireless virtual
campus escort to a user based on the user’s current location. Thus,
Laird discloses a condition based on which the server provides
routes for escort to the handset. However, Laird does not teach a
condition based on which the server automatically issues a
command, let alone automatically issuing the particularly claimed
command that triggers the controlling of the device to display the
screen that masquerades device operation.
Appeal Brief 15–16; see Final Action 6.
The Examiner finds, “As to claim 32, the combined system of [Laird,
Pickering] and Guy discloses the invention as in parent claims above, including,
wherein the condition is that the device is moved within a specific distance of a
location (Lai, [0095]).” Final Action 6. Laird discloses, “systems according to
the disclosure track the locations and movements of users who are not
necessarily proceeding to specific destinations, but whose movements are to be
restricted or monitored.” Laird ¶ 95. Laird further discloses:
After the user selects a route, or restrictions are placed on the user,
the campus security management server 114 uploads rules to the
handset 100, and a software application executing in the handset
thereafter monitors the location and movement of the handset and
compares this information to the rules. The rules are constructed to
detect actions, inactions and data from the sensors that are likely to
indicate that an escorted user is in danger or a restricted user has or
is about to perform an authorized action.
Appeal 2020-005115
Application 15/691,785
10

Laird ¶ 97.
Guy discloses that, “the handheld device 1 incorporates a high decibel
audible alarm and components and technology capable of detecting movement of
the handheld device 1 itself” whereas “where the alarm is triggered by detected
movement of the device itself exceeding a preset threshold value.” Guy page
27, lines 1–3, 6 and 7. Accordingly, both Laird and Guy disclose devices that
ascertain the location of the user and invoke a response and/or command based
upon the movement within a specific distance of the location. We sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 32. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
22–29, 31–42 103 Laird, Pickering,
Guy
22–29, 31–42

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

AFFIRMED