Ex Parte Arrasvuori et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201711828820 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) 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. 11/828,820 07/26/2007 Juha Henrik ARRASVUORI P2281US00 1008 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 06/01/2017 EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2017 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUHA HENRIK ARRASVUORI and PETRI MATTI OLAVI PIIPPO1 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims relating to method of triggering an event based on the movement pattern of a wireless communication device, which have been rejected as anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Nokia Corporation. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification discloses what is said to be “a more-intuitive system and/or method for activating various operations within a WCD [wireless communication device].” (Spec. 17.) Specifically, sensors incorporated within a device may be utilized to determine the orientation and/or position of a WCD during a series of motions forming a pattern. Certain recognized patterns performed by a user may initiate events within the device, such as activating a scan mode, initiating communication with another device, accepting information etc. {Id. 1 8.) Claims 1—30, 35, and 36 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 35 are illustrative and read as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method, comprising: storing movement pattern information in a wireless communication device, the wireless communication device including one or more movement sensors; receiving information from the one or more movement sensors; comparing the sensor information to the movement pattern information; and triggering a predetermined event associated with establishing or denying communications between another wireless communication device of at least one user group and the wireless communication device based on whether the sensor information is associated with the movement pattern information. 35. A server, comprising at least one processor; at least one communication module; and 2 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 at least one memory module including one or more databases; the at least one processor being coupled to the at least one communication module and the at least one memory module and further being configured to: store user group information in the one or more databases, the user group information including at least user profile information and movement pattern information; receive a request for registration to a group service from a wireless communication device; and send at least part of the user group information to the wireless communication device. This application was the subject of Appeal 2012-002671, and the prior art rejections of the claims then pending were reversed. After the application was returned to the examining corps, the Examiner entered new rejections and Appellants added the claim language highlighted above in claim 1. The Examiner maintained the rejections, and this appeal followed. The claims stand rejected as follows: Claims 1, 6—10, 14, 19—23, 27, 28, 30, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Marvit2 or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and Ashman3 (Ans. 2); Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Rosenberg4 and Marvit (Ans. 7); 2 Marvit et al., US 2005/0212758 Al, Sept. 29, 2005. 3 Ashman, Jr. et al., US 2006/0052109, Mar. 9, 2006. 4 Rosenberg, US 2007/0273583 Al, Nov. 29, 2007. 3 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 Claims 2—5, 15—18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Albertson5 (Ans. 9); Claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Gupta6 (Ans. 11); and Claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Rosenberg (Ans. 11). I The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6—10, 14, 19—23, 27, 28, 30, and 36 as anticipated by Marvit.7 The Examiner finds that Marvit teaches a method that meets all of the limitations of claim 1, including triggering a predetermined event associated with establishing or denying communications with another wireless communication device of at least one user group. (Ans. 2-4.) We agree with the Examiner that Marvit anticipates claim 1. Marvit discloses a handheld device such as a mobile phone, where the device “can recognize movement of the device and can perform various functions corresponding to such movement. Thus, movement of the device operates as a form of input for the device.” (Marvit 134.) The device includes a motion detector that includes accelerometers, among other things, that detect movement of the device. (Id. H 42-43.) The data from the motion detector “is processed at the handheld device. Particular databases, such as gesture and gesture mapping databases, may be 5 Albertson et al., US 2008/0170776 Al, July 17, 2008. 6 Gupta et al., US 2006/0092890 Al, May 4, 2006. 7 Because we conclude that Marvit anticipates claim 1, we need not reach the alternative basis for the rejection under § 103(a). 4 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 accessed to determine a matching gesture and intended function based on motion.” (Id. 1122.) Marvit states that “users may move handheld devices according to particular gestures to cause the devices to perform desired functions, operations or tasks.” (Id. 1134.) “For example, if handheld device 10 comprised a cellular phone, a user may move device 10 in the form of heart 250 to call the user’s girlfriend, boyfriend or spouse or house 252 to call the user’s home.” (Id. 1135.) We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure describes “triggering a predetermined event associated with establishing or denying communications between another wireless communication device of at least one user group and the wireless communication device based on whether the sensor information is associated with the movement pattern information,” as recited in claim 1. More specifically, a boyfriend or girlfriend is reasonably interpreted to be a member of the user group “friends” and a spouse is reasonably interpreted to be a member of the user group “family,” both of which may contain more than one member. (See Ans. 4.) Appellants argue, however, that “Marvit’s girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse and/or house are not generally considered persons for whom you communicate with as a part of a user group, rather they are persons/places a person communicates with individually.” (Appeal Br. 10.) Appellants argue that “should the Examiner, assume the ‘user group’ is inherent to whatever user a call is sent to, then there would be no reason to include the recitation of ‘at least one user group’ as the recitation would not further limit the scope of the claim.” (Id. at 11.) 5 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants do not point to any limiting definition of “user group” provided in their Specification. With reference to defining patterns, the Specification states that “[a]n online community, or user group, may define public patterns recognized by all members of the group. These patterns may be used for social interaction, such as for initiating contact with, or accepting communication from, another member of the user group.” (Spec. 19.) The Specification, however, does not limit a “user group” to an online community, nor does claim 1 limit the movement pattern information stored and compared in the claimed method to patterns that are defined by an online community, or that are shared by members of an online community. We therefore agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “wireless communication device of at least one user group” includes the cell phone of a person within a group that is relevant to the user of a wireless communication device, such as friends or family members of the person using the device. Claim 1, therefore, reads on Marvif s disclosure of using movement of a mobile phone to call a boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse. We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellants rely on the same argument with respect to the other claims subject to this rejection. (Appeal Br. 11—12.) We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 6—10, 14, 19—23, 27, 28, 30, and 36 for the same reasons discussed above. II The Examiner has rejected claim 35 as obvious based on Rosenberg and Marvit. (Ans. 7.) The Examiner finds that Rosenberg teaches a server 6 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 comprising a communication module, a memory module including a database, and a processor coupled to the communication module and memory module. (Id.) The Examiner also finds that Rosenberg’s processor is configured to store user group information including user profile information, receive a request for registration to a group service, and send user group information to a wireless communication device. (Id. at 7—8.) We agree with the Examiner that the server of claim 35 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on Rosenberg and Marvit. Marvit is discussed above. Rosenberg discloses a system allowing the user of a portable computing device such as a cell phone (Rosenberg 116) to initiate communication with the user of another cell phone by pointing his cell phone in the direction of the second user’s cell phone (id. 1 5). Rosenberg discloses that a “person-to-person communication application (‘PPCA’)” enables the pointing-based person-to-person communication. (Id. 118.) Rosenberg discloses that “[t]he PPCA application running upon each portable computing device may also be operative to store and selectively access a unique personal profile for the current user of that portable computing device.” (Id. 121.) “The PPCA application may also be operative to store information about each user’s friends and/or business associates in their social network.” (Id.) “Personal profile information and/or personal security and/or privacy parameters may be stored in some embodiments on a remote server that is accessible by the portable computing devices.” (Id.) Rosenberg discloses that the server determines whether one user is authorized to access information about another user and, “[i]f the targeting user had requested information about a targeted user and is determined to have access to that information, the information is transmitted by the PPCA server 7 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 to the portable computing device of the targeting user.” (Id. 134.) Rosenberg states that its system “facilitates business and/or social networking activities by and among portable computing device users. In one embodiment, portable computing device users use a Web browser (on a computer or the portable device itself) to register online.” (Id. 123.) Thus, Rosenberg’s server is capable of storing data, accessing the data, and communicating the data to a wireless communication device. The server therefore includes a processor coupled to a communication module and to a memory module, as recited in claim 35. In Rosenberg’s system, each wireless communication device can store both a personal profile for the current user and information about each user’s friends and business associates. And Rosenberg states that its server can store personal profile information, personal security, or personal parameters. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to include a user’s information about friends and business associates among the personal profile information stored on the remote server. The Examiner acknowledges that Rosenberg does not disclose storing movement pattern information on its server, but finds that Marvit discloses a gesture database stored in memory and states that the memory can be any form of volatile or non-volatile memory, including a remote memory component. (Ans. 8; see also Marvit 137.) We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to store Marvit’s gesture database on Rosenberg’s remote server so that users of Rosenberg’s system could use Marvit’s gesture- based method for performing functions. With regard to the last two functions recited in claim 35, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that Rosenberg’s system is capable of performing them. With regard to receiving a request for a group service, Rosenberg states that 8 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 users of its system can use a Web browser on the portable device to register for a managed service provided by a system operator. (Rosenberg 123.) With regard to sending user group information to the portable device, Rosenberg states that the server can include personal profile information and access-preference information, and the system operator manages information access between registered users (id.); thus, the server must send part of the user group information to the portable device when it grants information access to appropriate users. Appellants argue that the rejection “does not account for the further recited features of ‘store user group information in the one or more databases, the user group information including at least user profile information’ as claimed.” (Appeal Br. 13.) “In fact, it is clear from Rosenberg that the personal profile is storing the user group information and not the other way around.” (Id. at 15.) Appellants argue that “Rosenberg at most describes some group memberships, but not information regarding those groups which is reasonably what a ‘user group information’ would entail. . . . Rosenberg only contemplates storing personal profile information and does not extend that information stored to a categorization of user group information.” (Id.) This argument is unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Rosenberg discloses storing both “a unique personal profile for the current user” and “information about each user’s friends and/or business associates.” (Rosenberg 121.) As discussed above with regard to anticipation, a user’s friends or business associates are encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “user group” because they are groups that are associated 9 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 with a particular user of the wireless communication device. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 35 as obvious based on Marvit and Rosenberg. Ill The Examiner has rejected claims 2—5, 15—18, and 29 as obvious based on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Albertson. (Ans. 9.) Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation of “receiving user group information in the wireless communication device, the user group information comprising the movement pattern information, the movement pattern information being related to the at least one user group.” (Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App’x).) The Examiner finds that “Albertson discloses triggering an event based on whether the predicted user gesture matches a required gesture” (Ans. 9) and concludes that the cited references would have made obvious the method of claim 2 (id. at 10). Appellants argue that “Albertson . . . relates to image tracking to determine a user gesture.” (Appeal Br. 17.) Appellants point out that Albertson’s system recognizes gestures, as a form of security access, using a stationary image device. (Id. at 18.) Appellants argue that “the use of gestures in calling/communication with individuals of Marvit and/or Ashman is not the same as the use of gestures in secure access to physical resources of Albertson” (id.), and thus Albertson fails to cure the deficiencies of Marvit (id. at 19). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not persuasively shown that a skilled worker would have had a reason to combine Marvit and Albertson in the manner required by claim 2. Albertson discloses that its invention “provides improved resource security” by using a “three- 10 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 dimensional image stream captured by one or more image capture devices” to grant or deny access to a resource by a user, depending on whether a predicted user gesture matches a required gesture. (Albertson | 5.) Albertson describes the related art as pertaining to obtaining access to resources such as an electronically controlled lock or access to a bank account at an ATM by entering or speaking a password or by detecting a fingerprint, voice imprint, or retinal scan. (Id. || 2—3.) The Examiner has not provided a persuasive reason for concluding that a skilled worker would have been led to combine Marvif s system for operating a cell phone by waving it in particular patterns with Albertson’s system for visually tracking a user’s gestures to determine whether to grant access to a resource such as a bank account. We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 2 as obvious based on Marvit and Albertson. Claim 15 includes the same relevant limitation, and claims 3—5 and 16—18 depend from either claim 2 or claim 5. We therefore reverse the rejection of these claims as well. Claim 29, however, does not include a limitation like those of claims 2 and 5. Claim 29 depends from claim 27, which was rejected as anticipated by Marvit. (Ans. 5.) As discussed above, we affirm the rejection of claim 27. Claim 29 adds the limitation that the apparatus of claim 27 “further compris[es] at least one memory for storing the at least some group information.” (Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App’x).) The Examiner finds that Albertson discloses a memory for storing group information; specifically a gesture specific to a group of users. (Ans. 10.) The Examiner also finds that Marvit teaches storing movement pattern information in a gesture database. (Id. at 2.) Marvit discloses that its 11 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 handheld device includes a memory for storing, among other things, a gesture database. (Marvit || 35, 37.) Marvit also discloses that “a user may move device 10 in the form of heart 250 to call the user’s girlfriend, boyfriend or spouse or house 252 to call the user’s home.” (Id. 1135.) Thus, the gesture database stored in the memory of Marvit’s device includes information about groups: the gesture of a heart is associated with the group of romantic interests and the gesture of a house is associated with the group of family members. Although we conclude that Albertson’s disclosure is not necessary to make the limitations of claim 29 obvious, we affirm the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Marvit and Albertson. “It is well settled that ‘anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.’” In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002). IV The Examiner has rejected claims 11 and 24 as obvious based on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Gupta. (Ans. 11.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to have modified the gesture database of Marvit/Ashman to include the feature of wireless scan as taught by Gupta in order to download the updated information.” (Id. ) We agree with the Examiner’s fact-finding, reasoning, and conclusion. Appellants argue that “Gupta, recited for other reasons, e.g., establishing network communications using a network scan, fails to cure the deficiencies of Marvit and/or Ashman.” (Appeal Br. 20.) For the reasons discussed above, however, we conclude that Marvit does not have any 12 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 deficiencies in anticipating claims 10 and 23, from which claims 11 and 24 respectively depend. Because Appellants have waived any arguments based on Gupta, we affirm the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Marvit and Gupta. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (Appeal Brief must contain “[t]he arguments of appellant with respect to each ground of rejection”); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“In the event of such a waiver, the PTO may affirm the rejection of the group of claims that the examiner rejected on that ground without considering the merits of those rejections.”). V The Examiner has rejected claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 as obvious based on Marvit and/or Ashman, combined with Rosenberg. (Ans. 11.) Because Appellants do not argue these claims separately, we select claim 12 as representative. Claim 12 is directed to “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising receiving acknowledgement information from a second wireless communication device.” (Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App’x).) The Examiner finds that “Rosenberg teaches receiving acknowledgement information from a second wireless communication device (e.g., see [0037]; the second user explicitly authorizing information access and/or communication initiation . . .).” (Ans. 12.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Marvit’s system to include Rosenberg’s acknowledgement feature to allow a user of a wireless communication device to more easily initiate communication with another user. (Id.) 13 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 We agree with that the method of claim 12 would have been obvious based on the cited references. Rosenberg discloses an operation for users of portable computing devices to initiate contact with each other. (Rosenberg 137.) Specifically, the device of a first user determines “whether the first user is authorized to access information about the second user and/or whether the first user is authorized to initiate communication with the second user.” {Id.) The factors used to make that determination include personal profile information, etc. (Id.) “Other of the factors may also include the second user explicitly authorizing information access and/or communication initiation by responding in real-time to a prompt displayed upon his or her portable computing device.” (Id.) We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to include this feature in Marvif s system in order to allow a caller to know whether the person called has authorized communication initiation. (In the non-patent context, this is known as answering the phone.) Appellants argue that Rosenberg does not remedy the deficiencies of Marvit. (Appeal Br. 22.) For the reasons discussed above, however, we conclude that Marvit discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore does not have any deficiencies in that respect that require remedying. Appellants also argue that “it is not clear how Rosenberg would be combined with Marvit and/or Ashman, as Rosenberg clearly is directed to pointing directly at another user to establish communication, so an acknowledgement is necessary, however, Marvit and/or Ashman fails to even contemplate communication establishment.” (Id.) This argument is also unpersuasive, because both Marvit and Rosenberg disclose communication between the wireless communication 14 Appeal 2016-004761 Application 11/828,820 devices of different users, and the advantage of Rosenberg’s acknowledgement feature for Marvit’s system—letting the caller know their call has been answered—would be apparent to any person of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 13, 25, and 26 fall with claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6—10, 14, 19—23, 27, 28, 30, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Marvit. We affirm the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Rosenberg and Marvit. We reverse the rejection of claims 2—5 and 15—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and Albertson. We affirm the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and Albertson. We affirm the rejection of claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and Gupta. We affirm the rejection of claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Marvit and Rosenberg. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation