Ex Parte Atkinson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2017

13139675 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2017)

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.
13/139,675 06/14/2011 Lee W. Atkinson 82732798 2854
22879
HP Tnr
7590 03/06/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
SAAVEDRA, EMILIO J
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEE W. ATKINSON and LUCA DI FIORE
Appeal 2016-004591
Application 13/139,6751
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 13—19. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-004591
Application 13/139,675
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to adjusting a
temperature threshold based on detecting human proximity. (Abstract.)
Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
13. A method, comprising:
determining whether a human is in contact with a computer
based on a signal from a proximity sensor in the
computer; and
in response to determining the human in contact with the
computer:
decreasing a temperature threshold for the computer from
a first temperature threshold to a second
temperature threshold;
based on a signal from the proximity sensor indicating
continued contact of the computer by the human
for more than a predetermined period of time,
further decreasing the temperature threshold from
the second temperature threshold to a third
temperature threshold; and
detecting whether the temperature threshold has been exceeded
and, in response to detecting that the temperature
threshold has been exceeded, throttling a processor.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 13—17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Watts, Jr. et al. (US 2002/0152406 Al, pub.
Oct. 17, 2002) and Cohen et al. (US 2006/0193113 Al, pub. Aug. 31, 2006).
(Final Act. 3—9.)
2
Appeal 2016-004591
Application 13/139,675
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watts, Cohen, and Lindgren et al. (US 6,442,013 B2,
issued Aug. 27, 2002). (Final Act. 9.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Watts and
Cohen teach or suggest the independent claim 13 limitation:
based on a signal from the proximity sensor indicating continued
contact of the computer by the human for more than a
predetermined period of time, further decreasing the temperature
threshold from the second temperature threshold to a third
temperature threshold....
. . . and the similar limitations recited in independent claim 16. (App. Br. 7—
11.)
ANALYSIS
For the limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Watts of a thermal management method for a laptop computer which lowers
the temperature threshold when the computer is removed from its docking
station, which is assumed indicative of the computer held on the user’s lap.
(Final Act. 3-A; Watts Tflf 2, 17, 28, 38.) The Examiner also relies on the
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 1, 2014); the Reply Brief
(filed Mar. 22, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed Oct. 22, 2014); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Feb. 3, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-004591
Application 13/139,675
disclosure in Cohen of lowering the temperature threshold when a motion
detector detects motion, which is also assumed indicative of the computer
held on the user’s lap. (Final Act. 4—5; Cohen || 2, 12, 13.)
Appellants argue, inter alia, neither Watts nor Cohen teaches or
suggests further decreasing the temperature threshold upon detection of
continued human contact for more than a predetermined period of time.
(App. Br. 8—9.) The Examiner cites Watts as teaching “that each thermal
profile can be made up of a series of thresholds, each with predetermined
time intervals.” (Ans. 4; citing Watts 1 56, see also Watts Figs. 8, 9.)
However, there is no mention, implicit or otherwise, of “predetermined time
intervals” in the portion of Watts cited by the Examiner. In particular,
although the Examiner is correct that Watts discloses algorithms that
transition to different amounts of processor throttling depending on detected
temperature ranges, the Examiner has not persuasively pointed to any
teaching or suggestion in Watts or Cohen wherein detection of duration of
user proximity has any effect on these algorithms.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not
provide prima facie support for the rejections. “[T]he examiner bears the
initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record before us, we are
constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 13 and
16 as obvious.
4
Appeal 2016-004591
Application 13/139,675
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 13 and 16 over Watts and Cohen. We also
do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 14, 15, 17, and 19 over
Watts and Cohen, and of claim 18 over Watts, Cohen and Lindgren, which
claims are dependent from claims 13 or 16.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 13—19.
REVERSED
5