Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2021

2021003963 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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. 15/713,544 09/22/2017 Kevin Tyler MCATEE P31333US1/77770000446101 5161 150004 7590 12/14/2021 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2021 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): dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com patent.docket@dentons.com patents.us@dentons.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KEVIN TYLER MCATEE, BABOO GOWREESUNKER, MICHAEL J. LAMB, BRENT W. SCHORSCH, and KEVIN LYNCH1 ________________ Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-45 and 49-51, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent. Appeal Br. 33, 36-38 (Claims App.). 1 Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 4, filed January 5, 2021. 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed January 5, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 4, 2021 (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed May 20, 2020 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 9, 2021 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed September 22, 2017 (“Spec.”). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral argument was held December 3, 2021. The transcript will be added to the record in due course. The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a device, such as smart phones, having a display screen wherein, when placed in a quiet mode of operation, a wrist raise gesture that would otherwise cause the display screen to brighten, is instead ignored. Claim 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with formatting altered, labels added, and disputed limitations emphasized, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims: 1. An electronic device, comprising: [(i)] a display screen; [(ii)] an accelerometer; [(iii)] a rotatable input mechanism that is physically rotatable relative to a housing of the electronic device; [(iv)] one or more processors; [(v)] a memory; and [(vi)] one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors of the electronic device, which cause the one or more processors to: [(a)] receive a user input at the electronic device while the display screen of the electronic device is in a first state; and Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 3 [(b)] in response to receiving the user input: [(1)] when it is determined that the user input, received while the display screen of the electronic device is in the first state, corresponds to a first rotation of the rotatable input mechanism and is received while a quiet mode of the electronic device is active, transition, in response to the user input, the display screen from the first state to a second state, wherein the display screen in the second state is brighter than the display screen in the first state; [(2)] when it is determined that the user input, received while the display screen of the electronic device is in the first state, is a wrist raise gesture and is received while the quiet mode of the electronic device is inactive, transition, in response to the user input, the display screen from the first state to the second state; and [(3)] when it is determined that the user input, received while the display screen of the electronic device is in the first state, is the wrist raise gesture and is received while the quiet mode of the electronic device is active, maintain the display screen in the first state. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relies on the following prior-art references: 3 All citations herein to the prior art are by reference to the first named inventor only. Name3 Reference Date Okamoto US 2005/0272462 A1 Dec. 8, 2005 Chang US 2011/0117902 A1 May 19, 2011 Tu US 2016/0018872 A1 Jan. 21, 2016 Vaughn US 2016/0205267 A1 July 14, 2016 Liu CN 104978904 A Oct. 14, 2015 Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 4 The Examiner rejects: a. claims 1-5, 7, 8, 15-20, 22, 23, 30-33, 35, 36, 43-45, and 49-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu and Okamoto (Final Act. 4-9); b. claims 6, 21, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu, Okamoto, and Liu (id. at 9); c. claims 9-13, 24-28, and 37-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu, Okamoto, and Vaughn (id. at 9-12); and d. claims 14, 29, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu, Okamoto, and Chang (id. at 12). ISSUE Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner errs in finding Tu’s disclosure of a wearable computing device that detects a device-raising gesture teaches or suggests responding to a wrist raise gesture by causing a display screen to brighten when not in a quiet mode of operation (claim 1’s element (v)(b)(2)) and to maintain an existing lesser screen brightness when in a quiet mode (claim 1’s element (v)(b)(3)) in rejecting claim 1 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the reasons discussed below, Appellant’s arguments persuade us that the Examiner errs. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu and Okamoto. Final Act. 4-7. The Examiner relies upon Tu’s disclosure of a wearable computing device (e.g., smartwatch) that detects a Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 5 device-raising gesture to activate a display for teaching the limitations of claim 1 (id. at 4-5 citing Tu ¶¶ 10-12, 43, 44, 48, 49, 63-73; Figs. 1A, 2A, 4) except for the rotatable input mechanism of claim 1’s element vi.b.1 (id. at 6). The Examiner relies on Okamoto’s disclosure of a mobile telephone unit having a jog dial that places the unit in a normal use mode for teaching the missing limitations of claim 1’s element vi.b.1. Id. at 6-7 (citing Okamoto ¶ 5). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to modify Tu’s device to include Okamoto’s “[jog] dial to provide various functions to a user in accordance with particular application, as generally well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art and taught by the Okamoto reference.” Id. at 7. Appellant contends disputed limitations v.b.2 and v.b.3 of claim 1 “recite[] a quiet mode that causes the same wrist raise gesture to be handled differently based on whether the quiet mode is active or inactive.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues “Tu is deficient for at least the fundamental reason that, in Tu, there is no disclosure of handling a wrist raise gesture differently based on whether or not a quiet mode is active or inactive.” Id. at 20 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds, finding Tu’s disclosure of basing activation of a user interface on dwell time results in handling a wrist gesture differently, as follows: Tu explicitly teaches “handling a wrist raise gesture differently based on (a) whether a quiet mode is active or inactive and (b) whether a dwell time reaches or exceeds a threshold: (1) if the dwell time reaches or exceeds the threshold and the user interface is active (corresponding to “the quiet mode is inactive”), the wrist raise gesture causes the display screen to transition from a first state to a second state; and (2) if the dwell time does not Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 6 reach or exceed the threshold and the user interface is inactive (corresponding to “the quiet mode is active”), the wrist raise gesture results in the display screen being maintained in the first state.[”] Ans. 4. Appellant replies, as follows. The claim makes clear that the differentiating factor between a wrist raise gesture causing a transition from the first state to the second state or maintaining the first state is whether the quiet mode is active or inactive. In the Answer, the Examiner makes no attempt to argue that Tu discloses a quiet mode that determines how a wrist raise gesture is handled. Rather, the Examiner argues that in Tu, the determination of whether to activate the display or maintain the display in an off state is made based on “whether a dwell time reaches or exceeds a threshold,” and that it is possible for the quiet mode to be active or inactive in these different scenarios. Answer, p. 4. In other words, the Examiner’s analysis essentially relies on an improper reading of the claim in which the state of the quiet mode is, at most, coincidental with respect to how the wrist raise gesture is handled. However, based on the plain language of the claims, it is clear that the claims require that the same wrist raise gesture is handled differently based on whether or not a quiet mode is active or inactive and, accordingly, the Examiner’s analysis is improper. Such features are not disclosed in Tu, and the Examiner makes no attempt to argue that such disclosure exists in Tu. Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. Claim 1 recites “receiv[ing] a user input . . . while the display screen . . . is in a first state” e.g., dimmed. Appeal Br. 33. Disputed limitations vi.b.2 and vi.b.3 each further recite a condition precedent of “when it is determined that Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 7 the user input. . . is a wrist raise gesture . . . .” Id. Thus, claim 1 requires a determination that a user input is a wrist raise gesture. Tu describes examining a possible raise gesture by detected raise gesture determining unit 708 to determine if a raise gesture has been detected. Tu ¶ 89. The determination is based on a dwell time: “If . . . the dwell time in focus pose exceeds a threshold, a previously-detected possible raise gesture can be reclassified as a detected raise gesture. At block 418, process 400 can notify wake control logic 230 that a detected raise gesture has occurred.” Tu ¶ 72; see also id. ¶¶ 89, 183, 196, 203, 210, 248. Thus, according to Tu, in those situations when a dwell time threshold is not satisfied, no raise gesture is detected. Alternatively, when the dwell time threshold is satisfied so that a raise gesture is detected, Tu describes activating user interface 202. That is, only if the dwell time is satisfied is a raise gesture detected; if the dwell time does not reach or exceed the threshold, there is no determination that the user input is a wrist gesture. However, claim 1’s element vi.b.3 requires that a condition precedent to maintaining the lower display brightness is that “it is determined that the user input . . . is [a] wrist raise gesture and is received while the quiet mode . . . is active.” Therefore, the Examiner errs in finding Tu’s description of not awakening a device when a dwell time threshold is not satisfied teaches claim 1’s element vi.b.3 (Ans. 44) because, according to Tu, no wrist raise 4 “[I]f the dwell time does not reach or exceed the threshold and the user interface is inactive (corresponding to ‘the quiet mode is active’), the wrist raise gesture results in the display screen being maintained in the first state.” Ans. 4. Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 8 gesture has been detected under such circumstances (i.e., when the dwell time threshold is not satisfied). In summary, we find that the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence that Tu selectively processes an input determined to be a gesture so as to only affect a display brightness level when not in a quiet mode, i.e., inhibit a detected gesture from causing a display intensity to increase when in the quite mode. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding Tu teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1’s elements vi.b.2 and vi.b.3. Because we agree with at least one of Appellant’s contentions of error, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejection of independent claims 15 and 16, which include language similar to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-14, 17-45, and 49-51, each of which stands with its respective base claim. DECISION SUMMARY We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of: a. claims 1-5, 7, 8, 15-20, 22, 23, 30-33, 35, 36, 43-45, and 49-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu and Okamoto; b. claims 6, 21, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu, Okamoto, and Liu; c. claims 9-13, 24-28, and 37-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu, Okamoto, and Vaughn; and Appeal 2021-003963 Application 15/713,544 9 d. claims 14, 29, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tu, Okamoto, and Chang. In summary: REVERSED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7, 8, 15-20, 22, 23, 30-33, 35, 36, 43- 45, 49-51 103 Tu, Okamoto 1-5, 7, 8, 15- 20, 22, 23, 30-33, 35, 36, 43-45, 49-51 6, 21, 34 103 Tu, Okamoto, Liu 6, 21, 34 9-13, 24- 28, 37-41 103 Tu, Okamoto, Vaughn 9-13, 24-28, 37-41 14, 29, 42 103 Tu, Okamoto, Chang 14, 29, 42 Overall Outcome 1-45, 49-51