Ex Parte Adjali et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

11284079 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte IQBAL ADJALI, OGI BATAVELJIC, MARCO DE
BONI, MALCOLM BENJAMIN DIAS, and ROBERT
HURLING
____________________

Appeal 2010-010884
Application 11/284,079
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010884
Application 11/284,079

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-24 and 27. Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 25 and 26 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to attitude reaction monitoring. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating a mobile computing device
for assessing explicit and implicit attitudes of a user
towards performing an intended behavior, wherein said
intended behavior is a particular activity defined by the
user, so as to provide motivation and encouragement to
the user to perform the intended behavior, said method
comprising:
presenting the user with a series of tasks, each task
requiring at least one response from the user, said tasks
directed to assessing explicit and implicit attitudes
towards performing the intended behavior selected by the
user, wherein said implicit attitudes assessed by one or
more reaction time tests based on word categorization
tasks, subliminal priming to measure the influence of
categories on word sorting, or via direct text analysis;
receiving the responses to the tasks from the user;
determining with a conflict resolution module, as a
function of the received responses, one or more
differences between the explicit and implicit attitudes of
the user towards performing the intended behaviour; and
delivering at least one message to the user, as a
result of the differences between explicit and implicit
attitudes, said message providing motivation or
encouragement to the user to perform the intended
behaviour;
wherein presenting the user with a series of tasks
includes:
Appeal 2010-010884
Application 11/284,079

3
presenting the user with a sequence of
predetermined questions directed to the intended
behavior for assessing the explicit attitude of which the
user is consciously aware towards performing the
intended behaviour; and
presenting the user with a sequence of tests
measuring reaction time in a word characterization test
for assessing the implicit attitude of which the user is not
consciously aware towards performing the intended
behaviour.

REFERENCES
Bro
Reynolds
US 5,596,994
US 5,911,581
Jan. 28, 1997
Jun. 15, 1999

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-24 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Bro and Reynolds. Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a method of operating a mobile
computing device (e.g., a cell phone) to motivate a user to perform an
intended behavior comprising, inter alia, presenting the user with a series of
tasks designed to assess the user’s explicit and implicit attitudes toward the
intended behavior. App. Br. 23; see Spec. 3, ll. 9-13. The Specification
defines “implicit attitude” as an attitude “of which an individual is not
consciously aware, i.e., subconscious associations which are more
psychologically deep-rooted and instinctive to the individual.” Spec. 1, ll.
16-19. The Examiner found that Bro teaches this limitation. Ans. 3, 12
(citing Bro, col. 13, ll. 31-41; col. 23, ll. 1-40). The Examiner explained that
Appeal 2010-010884
Application 11/284,079

4
Bro’s system is designed to send a client behavioral
modification polling questions. . . . The answers to the
questions are analyzed by the client’s doctor or trainer to find
root problems and to determine the next series of messages
and/or questions that are to be transmitted to the client at the
next transmittal period (cite omitted), wherein the root of the
problem would be directed to the behavioral stage of
precontemplation in which individual are unaware or
underaware that they have a problem [individual that are
unconscious of their behavioral/attitude problem]. . .
Ans. 12 (citing Bro, col. 13, ll. 31-40, col. 23, ll. 1-40).
Appellants respond that “Bro is directed to an automated and
interactive positive motivation system (10) that allows a physician,
counselor or trainer to produce and send a series of motivational messages
and/or questions to a client (50) to change or reinforce a specific behavioral
problem,” and does not teach or suggest presenting users with tasks that
assess implicit attitudes. App. Br. 12-13.
We have considered the Examiner’s and Appellants’ positions, and
believe that Appellants have the better argument. In our view, the Examiner
has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand Bro to teach or suggest a method that
provides a user with a series of tasks to assess the user’s implicit attitudes
toward an intended behavior. The Examiner relies on Bro’s teaching
regarding sending a user behavioral modification polling questions, the
answers of which are analyzed to determine whether the user is unaware or
underaware that he or she has a problem. But we do not believe that being
unaware or underaware that one has a problem necessarily means that one
has an implicit attitude toward an intended behavior. Such lack of
awareness could just as easily reflect an explicit attitude – for example, that
Appeal 2010-010884
Application 11/284,079

5
the person’s behavior does not need to change – as an implicit attitude.
Stated somewhat differently, there might not be any “intended” behavior at
all if the person does not believe he or she needs to change, which would be
the case if the user did not believe his or her current behavior is problematic.
And while lack of awareness of a personal problem may be accompanied by
feeling pressured by family and friends to change behavior, such pressure is
as likely reflective of an explicit attitude as much as an implicit attitude
toward the pressured behavior. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and those claims that depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1
(claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-18).
Independent claims 19 and 22 are drawn to apparatuses that practice
the method of claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we also
do not sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 22, as well as their dependent
claims.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8,
10, 12-24 and 27 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls