Ex Parte Herman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 14, 2018

14719859 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 141719,859 05/22/2015 Kenneth Louis Herman 16621 7590 05/16/2018 Morris & Kamlay LLP I 030120 1911 N. Fort Myer Drive Suite 1050 Arlington, VA 22209 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. 030120-204810US 7760 EXAMINER MCCORMACK, THOMAS S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2018 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): pto@morriskamlay.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENNETH LOUIS HERMAN, BRYAN JAMES, and KEITH KOPS Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-36, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention integrates a security system with a mobile device. See generally Abstract. According to the Specification, when the mobile device is within a predetermined range of the security system, the 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Google, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 security system's operating mode determines whether to integrate the mobile device with the security system. Spec. i-f 17. In one embodiment, when the mobile device is within the predetermined range of the security system and the operating mode is a "home" mode, then data captured by the mobile device's sensors is provided to the security system. Id. i-f 23. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: determining an operating mode of a home security system; determining, by the security system, that a mobile device is located within a predetermined range of the home security system; receiving, by the home security system, sensor data collected by the mobile device according to the determined operating mode of the home security system and the determined location of the mobile device; and outputting an alarm, by the home security system, based on the received sensor data collected by the mobile device and the determined operating mode of the home security system. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Saigh et al. (US 2013/0183924 Al; July 18, 2013). Final Act. 3-16. 2 CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Saigh teaches the recited elements of independent claim 1 including, among other things, outputting an alarm, by 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January 10, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed April 26, 2017 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed June 26, 2017 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed July 21, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 a home security system, based on received sensor data collected by a mobile device and a determined operating mode of the home security system. Ans. 2-5 (citing Saigh i-fi-f 10-11). Appellants note that Saigh's paragraph 10 describes a mobile device entering a server's active sub-network when the mobile device enters a predetermined area, and the server providing the mobile device's alert/event details to other mobile devices upon receiving the alert/event details from the mobile device. App. Br. 5---6. Appellants add that Saigh's paragraph 11 describes the mobile device including a sensor that reads alert/event data having associated X-Y-Z coordinate information of the mobile device. Id. at 6. Appellants argue that Saigh's paragraphs 10 and 11 do not teach outputting an alarm, by a home security system, based on received sensor data collected by a mobile device and a determined operating mode of the home security system as claimed. Id. ISSUES UnderÂ§ 103(a), has the Examiner erred by finding that Saigh would have taught or suggested: ( 1) outputting an alarm, by a home security system, based on received sensor data collected by a mobile device and a determined operating mode of the home security system as recited in claim 1? (2) activating an alarm of the home security system when the security system determines that the mobile device has moved according to the transmitted sensor data as recited in claim 9? 3 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 (3) the home security system verifying the data collected by one or more sensors of the home security system according to the sensor data received from the mobile device as recited in claim 11? ANALYSIS Claims 1-8, 10, 12-26, 28, and 30-36 Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, [a] determining an operating mode of a home security system; [b] determining, by the security system, that a mobile device is located within a predetermined range of the home security system; [ c] receiving, by the home security system, sensor data collected by the mobile device according to the determined operating mode of the home security system and the determined location of the mobile device; and [ d] outputting an alarm, by the home security system, based on the received sensor data collected by the mobile device and the determined operating mode of the home security system. App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x) (letter designations added for ease of reference). We begin by noting step [ d], the disputed limitation, recites outputting an alarm, by a home security system, based on steps [a] and [ c]. Step [ c] is directed to receiving, by the home security system, sensor data collected by a mobile device according to step [a] and the determined location of the mobile device. Although there is no explicit antecedent basis for the determined location of the mobile device, the limitation nonetheless implicitly refers to whether or not the mobile device is determined, by the home security system, as being within a predetermined range of the home security system of step [b]. Moreover, we interpret the receiving of the 4 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 sensor data collected by the mobile device of step [ c] as being according to steps [a] and [b ], and not the sensor data itself as being according to steps [a] and [b]. Turning to the rejection, the Examiner finds Saigh's system determines that mobile devices are located within a perimeter area or no mobile devices are located within the perimeter area. Ans. 1 7 (citing Saigh i-fi-f l 0-11 ). That is, according to the Examiner, Saigh' s system determines either a first or second operating mode. Id. We see no error in this finding for at least suggesting step [a]. Saigh is directed to a personal safety mobile notification system that allows a server to collect information from mobile devices located within an established perimeter area. Saigh, Abstract; Title. Saigh's established perimeter area is composed of nodes coupled to the server. Saigh i-f 10. "[W]hen one or more of the plurality of mobile devices enters the area, the corresponding mobile device enters an active sub- network within the personal safety notification system." Id. Because Saigh discloses a mobile device entering the active sub-network when the mobile device enters the established perimeter area, Saigh at least suggests determining that the mobile device has entered the active sub-network of the personal safety mobile notification system (the claimed "operating mode of a home security system"). Furthermore, we find no error in the Examiner's reliance on paragraph 10 of Saigh for teaching step [b]. Ans. 4. Because Saigh disclosesthe mobile device enters the active sub-network when the mobile device enters the established perimeter area, Saigh at least suggests determining, by the personal safety notification system, that the mobile device is located within 5 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 the established perimeter area of the personal safety notification system (the claimed "predetermined range of the home security system"). We likewise see no error in the Examiner's reliance on paragraphs 10 and 11 of Saigh for teaching step [ c] according to step [a] and "the determined location of the mobile device") (i.e., either within or not within the predetermined range of the home security system recited in step [b ]). Ans. 4--5. Saigh's mobile device includes a sensor that reads alert/event data including associated X-Y-Z coordinate information of the mobile device. Id. i-fi-f l 0-11. "The server . . . receives alert/ event details from each mobile device in the active sub-network." Saigh i-f 10. Because Saigh's server receives alert/event details from a mobile device in the active sub-network, Saigh at least suggests receiving, by the personal safety mobile notification system, the alert/ event data including associated X-Y-Z coordinate information (the claimed "sensor data") collected by the mobile device according to (1) the mobile device determined as having entered the active sub-network (step [a]), and (2) the mobile device determined as being located within the established perimeter area of the personal safety notification system (step [b ]). Nor do we find error in the Examiner's reliance on paragraphs 10 and 11 of Saigh for teaching step [ d], the disputed limitation---outputting an alarm, by the home security system, based on steps [a] and [ c]. Ans. 3, 18. Saigh's server "provides the alert/event details to specific ones of the plurality of mobile devices in the active sub-network in response to the occurrence of a given alert/event, the alert/event details including X-Y-Z coordinate information." Saigh i-f 10. Becaue Saigh's server provides the alert/event details received from a first mobile device in the active sub- 6 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 network to other mobile devices in the active sub-network, Saigh at least suggests outputting the first mobile device's alert/event data including associated X-Y-Z coordinate information ("the claimed "alarm"), by the personal safety mobile notification system, based on (1) the received alert/event details collected by the first mobile device (step [c]), and (2) the first mobile device determined as being located within the established perimeter area of the personal safety notification system (step [b ]). Appellants' contention that the quoted language of Saigh's paragraphs 10 and 11 do not disclose outputting an alarm based at least partly on aspects [a] and [c] (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4---6) is unavailing. That is, these arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings and conclusions discussed above. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-8, 10, 12-26, 28, and 30- 36, not argued separately with particularity. Claim 9 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 9 (Ans. 9), which recites, in pertinent part, activating an alarm of the home security system when the security system determines that the mobile device has moved according to the transmitted sensor data. We interpret the determined mobile device movement as according to the transmitted sensor data. In accord with our precedent, claim 9's alarm activation need not be satisfied to meet claim 9. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition precedent is not met); see also MANUAL OF PATENT 7 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) Â§ 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing Schulhauser). Although the limitations at issue in Schulhauser were rendered conditional by the recitation of "if' (see Schulhauser at *6-8), we discern no meaningful distinction between the recitations of "if' and "when" in this context. Indeed, one dictionary definition of "when" is "in the event that: on condition that: IF." MERRIAM- WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 2602 (2002). Accordingly, we construe "when" to be synonymous with "if'; therefore, the term "when" in the context of claim 9 renders the disputed limitation conditional. Turning to the rejection, we find Appellants' argument that Saigh does not teach or suggest claim 9 (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 7-8) unavailing because, as discussed above, claim 9 's alarm activation need not be satisfied. But, even if the recited condition had to be satisfied to meet the claim (which it does not), we are still unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. That is, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Saigh's alarm is only activated when a mobile device moves into a perimeter area. Ans. 17. -Saigh's mobile device enters an active sub-network within a server's coordinated personal safety notification system when the mobile device enters the perimeter area. Saigh i-f 10. Notably, this condition occurs when the device moves from outside the perimeter area to inside the perimeter area. See id. Upon Saigh's server receiving alert/event details from the mobile device that entered the active sub-network, the server provides the alert/event details to other mobile devices in the active sub-network. Id. Saigh' s alert/ event details include associated X-Y-Z coordinates of the mobile device. Id., Abstract, i-fi-1 10-11. 8 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 In short, but for the mobile phone moving into the perimeter area, there would be no activation of providing the mobile phone's alert/event details to other mobile devices in the active sub-network. Therefore, Saigh's providing the mobile phone's alert/event details to other mobile devices in the active sub-network is activated when Saigh's server determines that the mobile phone has moved according to the alert/event details including associated X-Y-Z coordinates of the mobile device. Therefore, the Examiner's finding in this regard has at least a rational basis that has not been persuasively rebutted. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 9. Claims 11and29 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 11, which recites, in part, the home security system verifying the data collected by one or more sensors of the home security system according to the sensor data received from the mobile device. Final Act. 11. According to the Examiner, Saigh's mobile device includes biometric sensor data that confirms a user prior to sending alert/event details. Ans. 18 (citing Saigh i-fi-f 11, 70). We see no error in this finding. Saigh's server, or integrated emergency database, includes biometric databases that interface with a mobile device's Personal Mobile Safety software. Saigh i170. During the mobile device's setup, a user scans his or her fingerprint that is saved on the mobile device and server. Id. A portion of Saigh's Figure 7 is illustrative and reproduced below: 9 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 .:11 an ' ~ rn:29 All = . ' . . ~;::::-::;-~, Pushlo~ A!erf Â· Â· .. -z~: iii~?<'' ' . Push to s~.rid an ~le:rt PRESS FllllGEfl TO IJ.UTION UNill 716 PRl~T VERIFICATION IS COMPLETE----,.-.._.. (-"\ '~) Partial view of Saigh's Figure 7 showing a mobile device's fingerprint scan screen As illustrated in the portion of Saigh' s Figure 7, a "Push to Alert" icon location 712 on the mobile device's screen is displayed where a user may press their finger to open a portion of a program capable of sending alert/event details. Id. i-f 70. Saigh, then, at least suggests that the program capable of sending the alert/event details is the mobile device's Personal Mobile Safety software interfaced with the server, or integrated emergency database. Saigh's mobile device will not grant a user access to the portion of the program that sends alerts unless the user's fingerprints match the fingerprints on file in the mobile device. Id. In short, this fingerprint-based "verification" prevents sending false alerts. Id. i-f 71; see also the portion of Saigh's Figure 7 (illustrating "VERIFICATION"). Saigh, then, at least 10 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 suggests that the Personal Mobile Safety software interfaced with the server verifies the biometric data collected by one or more sensors of the Personal Mobile Safety software interfaced with the server according to the alert/event details received from the mobile device. Therefore, the Examiner's finding in this regard has at least a rational basis that has not been persuasively rebutted. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 8. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11, and claim 29, which recites commensurate limitations. Claim 27 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 27 (Ans. 14), which recites limitations similar to those in claim 9, but is directed to hardware to perform the method of claim 9. The broadest reasonable interpretation of an apparatus claim with hardware that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *7-8. Therefore, claim 27 has a different scope than claim 9 because the structure, namely the hardware configured to perform the recited function, is required regardless of whether the function is actually performed. Turning to the rejection, as discussed above, we see no error in the Examiner's finding that Saigh teaches the recited function and condition. Therefore, the Examiner's finding in this regard has at least a rational basis that has not been persuasively rebutted. On this record, then, we see no error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 27. 11 Appeal2017-010070 Application 14/719,859 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-36 under 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision in rejecting claims 1-36 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 12