Ex Parte Abrahams et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2019

14953107 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/953,107 11/27/2015 Faried Abrahams
73109 7590 01/17/2019
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
END920l50229US1_8l34-0l03 9067
EXAMINER
SUBEDI, DEEPROSE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2019 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte F ARIED ABRAHAMS,
MICHAELE. ALEXANDER, JIGNESHKUMAR K. KARIA,
GANDHI SIV AKUMAR, and RAMBABU YERRA
Appeal2018-006051
Application 14/953, 107
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006051
Application 14/953, 107
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a providing haptic feedback using
context analysis and analytics. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative (App. Br.
7) and reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
responsive to determining that a user is proximate to a
haptic feedback device, determining, using a processor, a
location of the haptic feedback device;
receiving, using the processor, a plurality of external
factors determined from the location of the haptic feedback
device, biometric data for the user, and social networking data
for the user; and
determining, using the processor, a haptic feedback for use
by the haptic feedback device by applying the external factors to
a haptic feedback template of an object.
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of MODARRES et al. (US 2014/0347176 Al,
published Nov. 27, 2014) ("Modarres") and DAS et al. (US 2013/0227409
Al, published Aug. 29, 2013) ("Das").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1-20 in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision
only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
2
Appeal2018-006051
Application 14/953, 107
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Appellants contend one of the cited portions of Modarres does not
teach the limitation "receiving, using the processor, a plurality of external
factors determined from the location of the haptic feedback device," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants argue that paragraph 5 of
Modarres merely teaches determining a location of the haptic feedback
device, not using the location to determine a plurality of external factors, as
claim 1 requires. Id. at 9. Thus, Appellants argue "none of the sensor
information described in paragraph [0005] of Modarres requires knowledge
of the location of the haptic device in order to sense." Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they do not address
all of the portions of Modarres on which the Examiner relied. The Examiner
found Modarres teaches multiple "external parameters" that include "sensed
conditions related to: an environment ( e.g., ambient air temperature), spatial
information ( e.g., motion, location, orientation, etc.), biometrics information
of a user that is being sensed ( and who may receive the haptic feedback),
and/ or other information that can be sensed or otherwise determined about a
user, object, and/or environment." Final Act. 2 (citing Modarres ,r,r 4--5)
( emphasis omitted).
The Examiner further found Modarres teaches or suggests that the
location of the haptic device is the location of the user in an environment
because the user carries or wears haptic device 162, which provides haptic
feedback to the user, using multiple "external parameters." Id. at 2-3 ( citing
Modarres ,r,r 54, 66). The Examiner concluded that the limitation "location"
3
Appeal2018-006051
Application 14/953, 107
is broad enough to encompass the "location of the user when the device is
worn or carried by the user." Ans. 4.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's findings or
persuaded us that the Examiner's interpretation of the term "location" is
overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Instead,
Appellants argue the recited "external factors" must be "separate and
dependent from the claimed 'location."' Reply Br. 4. Moreover, while
Appellants acknowledge that the ambient air temperature, sensor
information, and environment taught in Modarres are "associated with the
location of the haptic feedback device," Appellants argue the claim
limitation "determined from" requires "a strong linkage such that one (i.e.,
the external factors) can be determined from (e.g., analyzed) the other (i.e.,
the location)." Reply Br. 5 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants present insufficient support for their proffered claim
interpretation, and we find none. See Reply Br. 5; see also Spec. ,r,r 28-29
( describing determining external factors). Neither the Specification nor the
claims describe how or to what extent the recited location is used to
determine external factors.
Appellants further argue, "as a matter of common sense (for example)
one does not need to know the location of something in order to obtain the
'ambient air temperature."' Reply Br. 5. Appellants do not provide any
basis for this argument. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
(attorney argument is not evidence). Moreover, we find a preponderance of
4
Appeal2018-006051
Application 14/953, 107
the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that the cited teachings of
Modarres reasonably suggest that the relevant "ambient air temperature" in
Modarres is at the location of the haptic device. 2 See Ans. 3--4.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Modarres and Das teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 2-
20, which Appellants group with claim 1. 3 See App. Br. 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
2 "The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art." In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413,425 (CCPA 1981)); see also MPEP § 2123.
3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
5