ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 5, 20212020000714 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/219,934 07/26/2016 David A. Kummer 066.0289C1 3283 70560 7590 05/05/2021 LKGLOBAL (Dish Technologies L.L.C.) 7010 E. COCHISE ROAD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253 EXAMINER HUNNINGS, TRAVIS R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2021 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): dish@lkglobal.com ipdept@dish.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID A. KUMMER 1 ____________________ Appeal 2020-000714 Application 15/219,934 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 20, claim 13 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Dish Technologies L.L.C. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000714 Application 15/219,934 2 INVENTION The invention relates generally to a method for identifying a user of an electronic device by measuring the bioelectrical impedance of the user and associating the measured value with information corresponding to the user. Abstract. Claims 1 and 19 are reproduced below. 1. A method of identifying a user of an electronic device, the method comprising: measuring a bioelectrical impedance of the user; generating a value based on the measured bioelectrical impedance of the user; and measuring a bioelectrical impedance of a current user of a media content receiver as the electronic device; generating a value based on the measured bioelectrical impedance of the current user; comparing the value associated with the current user with the value associated with the user; and replacing the value associated with the user with the value associated with the current user when the value associated with the current user indicates that the current user is the user. 19. An electronic device, comprising: a memory; a communication interface configured to receive values based on measured bioelectrical impedances a user of the electronic device, and to receive user commands for the electronic device; and control logic configured to: identify a current user based on a measured bioelectrical impedance from the communication interface; and in response to the identification, control the operation of the electronic device based on peer group Appeal 2020-000714 Application 15/219,934 3 information indicating other users with whom to communicate and corresponding to the user in response to user commands initiated by the current user. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanida (US 2002/0179338 A1, pub. Dec. 5, 2002) and Adams (US 6,970,098 B1, iss. Nov. 29, 2005). Final Act. 3–9. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanida, Adams, and Drinan (US 2004/0019292 A1, pub. Jan. 29, 2004). Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanida, Adams, and Baumgartner (US 2005/0160458 A1, pub. July 21, 2005). Final Act. 12–13. The Examiner rejected claims 19 and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura (US 2010/0321151 A1, pub. Dec. 23, 2010), Adams, and Douglas (US 2006/0176149 A1, pub. Aug. 10, 2006). Final Act. 13–16. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 20 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 9, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed February 7, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 21, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-000714 Application 15/219,934 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 18 Appellant argues with respect to independent claim 1 that the Examiner’s rejection is in error as there is no reason to combine the teachings of Tanida and Adams. Appeal Br. 5–7. Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not provided a reasoned articulation of why the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Tanida and Adams. Appeal Br. 6–7. Further, Appellant asserts that Tanida uses the combination of weight and biometric impedance to identify the user (with weight value being more heavily weighted). Appeal Br. 7. Appellant asserts that the skilled artisan would not combine the teachings because if they are combined the “user would need to place the remote control on the ground, step on the remote control to provide weight information, then retrieve the remote control from the ground before using the remote control. Such a system would in many cases be less convenient than simply walking to the remotely controlled device and manually providing inputs.” Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner, in rejecting claim 1 finds that Tanida teaches the limitations directed to measuring bioelectrical impedance of a user to identify the user and Adams to teach a controller for a home entertainment system which makes use of biometric data to identify a user. Final Act. 3–4; Answer 4–5. The Examiner finds that the skilled artisan would combine the references as “[b]ioelectrical impedance is one of many types of biometric features.” Final Act. 5. Additionally, in response to Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner states: It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the system of Tanida et al. that uses biometric input to identify a user may use one of many biometric features obtained Appeal 2020-000714 Application 15/219,934 5 from a variety of biometric sensors for applications such as identifying a user in a media content system. As noted in FOA p. 5, extracted biometric features are used in association with household electronics for user access and preference/profile settings. Ans. 5. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We have reviewed the teachings of Tanida and Adams and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the skilled artisan would combine the teachings. Appellant’s arguments focus on Tanida’s teaching of identifying the user by measuring both weight and bioelectrical impedance, however we do not consider Tanida’s teachings to be so limited. Rather, Tanida teaches, in paragraph 56 that the weight and or bioelectrical impedance may be used to identify the user and in paragraph 105 discusses an embodiment where the bioelectric impedance alone is used to identify the user. Paragraph 105 also identifies that the bioelectric impedance may be measured at the users hand. Thus, Appellant’s argument, on page 7 of the Brief, that the combination would require the user to stand on the device to measure weight and bioelectric impedance, is not well taken. Rather, we consider the use of Tanida’s teaching of bioelectric impedance to identify a user in place of the biometric measuring element of Adams’ controller for a home entertainment system is merely a substitution of one known biometric measuring method for another. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Tanida and Adams, and are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s Appeal 2020-000714 Application 15/219,934 6 rejection of claim 1 by the Appellant’s arguments. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 12 and 14 through 18 are in error for the same reason as claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 through 12 and 14 through 18 for the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 19 and 20 Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 is in error as the combination of Matsuura, Adams, and Douglas do not teach the limitation directed to “control the operation of the electronic device based on peer group information indicating other users with whom to communicate.” Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant argues the Examiner has erroneously equated “who is accessing the system” in Adams with the claimed peer group. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a decision in the parent application (Appeal 2014-001516 mailed 2/16/16) agreed that “the rejection must include a description of how the portion of Adams indicates other users with whom to communicate.” Appeal Br. 8. Further, Appellant asserts the skilled artisan reading the Specification would understand that “the peer group information requires some actual information related to other users or receivers to be positively associated with a particular user.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec. ¶ 50). Given this interpretation, Appellant asserts that Adams does not suggest such peer group information. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer. The Examiner identifies that there is nothing in the prior decision that has bearing on the current rejection of claim 19. Ans. 6. Appeal 2020-000714 Application 15/219,934 7 Further, the Examiner states: in response to Appellants argument the examiner’s interpretation of peer group is unreasonably broad, examiner would point to a definition of the phrase “peer group” as “a social group composed of individuals of approximately the same age.” Therefore, it would not have been unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the classification of users based on age as a classification into “peer groups” as claimed in the application. The limitations appellant is attempting to read into the claims from the specification are too specific to overcome the broad language of “peer group” currently used in the claim. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Adams’ teaching of two groups of authorized users, adults and children meets the claimed peer group. Ans. 5 (citing Figs. 1, 2, 5 and col. 13, l. 47– col. 14, l. 24).3 Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. At the outset, we note that our Decision in Appeal 2014-001516 did not involve a rejection in which Adams was applied as prior art, and as such Appellant’s arguments which rely upon the prior decision and Adams are a non-sequitur. Claim 19 recites “control the operation of the electronic device based on peer group information indicating other users with whom to communicate.” Thus, the claim recites that the electronic devices is controlled based upon information in the peer group and that the peer group identifies who the other users with whom to communicate. Adams teaches a controls feature, where if a user is identified as being above a certain age, the media device allows the user to access the certain pages and content. Adams (col. 14, ll. 5–15). Even if we apply 3 We note that page 5 of the Answer contains a typo identifying column 14 line 47 instead of column 13 line 47. Appeal 2020-000714 Application 15/219,934 8 Appellant’s proffered interpretation of the term peer group, as requiring “some actual information related to other users or receivers to be positively associated with a particular user” we consider this disclosure of Adams to teach the claimed peer group. Appeal Br. 9. As the biometric information is used to determine information as to the person’s age and identifies them as part of a group of people who the device is allowed to provide communication (more pages and content). Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 and claim 20 grouped with claim 19. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16–18 103 Tanida, Adams 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16–18 2, 4, 14, 15 103 Tanida, Adams, Drinan 2, 4, 14, 15 7, 9 103 Tanida, Adams, Baumgartner 7, 9 19, 20 103 Matsuura, Adams, Douglas 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1–12, 14– 20 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation