Ex Parte Moosavi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 2, 2016

13034006 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/034,006 02/24/2011 85643 7590 08/04/2016 Guntin & Gust, PLC - BB DOCKET 117 S. Cook St. No. 358 Barrington, IL 60010 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR V AHID MOOSA VI 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. 38671-US-PAT_l03-0071 9983 EXAMINER JUSTUS, RALPH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2016 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): docketing@ggip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VAHID MOOSA VI, DAVID RYAN WALKER, and KEVIN ORR Appeal 2015-003165 Application 13/034,006 Technology Center 2600 Before: DANIEL N. FISHMAN, IRVINE. BRANCH, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 3,5,9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19,and22. Claims2,4,6-8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17,20, and 21 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2015-003165 Application 13/034,006 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to determining a direction of wireless data transmission between devices based on orientation of one of the devices. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A mobile communications device for use in a communication system having at least one electronic device comprising a first display and configured to wirelessly communicate via a Near-Field Communications (NFC) format the mobile communications device comprising: an NFC device configured to wirelessly communicate with said at least one electronic device via the NFC format, a second display; an orientation detection sensor; and a controller coupled with said NFC device, said orientation detection sensor and said second display, the controller being configured to determine the direction that said second display is facing based upon said orientation detection sensor, and determine whether to transfer data to, receive data from, or exchange data with respect to said at least one electronic device based upon the determined direction that said second display is facing, wherein said controller is configured to cause said NFC device to transmit digital content data to said at least one electronic device based upon the determined direction of said second display facing substantially upward or away from an operator of said at least one mobile communications device, and to cause said NFC device to receive digital content data from said at least one electronic device based upon the determined direction of said second display facing substantially downward or toward an operator of said at least one mobile communications device. 2 Appeal2015-003165 Application 13/034,006 REJECTION Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19 and22 stand rejected underpre- AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hodges (US 2008/0195735 Al; published Aug. 14, 2008), Ahlgren (US 7,986,917 B2; issued July 26, 2011), and Alameh (US 8,275,412 B2; issued Sept. 25, 2012). Ans. 2-13. ANALYSIS We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-15) and as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 2-15). However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants present the following argument with respect to the Examiner's rejection of the independent claims: the Examiner has not cited any reference that teaches determining the direction the second display is facing based upon the orientation detection sensor, and determining whether to transfer data to, receive data from, or exchange data with respect to the at least one electronic device based upon the determined direction the second display is facing; or further, that the NFC device is caused to transmit digital content data to the at least one electronic device based upon the determined direction of the second display facing substantially upward or away from an operator of the at least one mobile communications device, and caused to receive digital content data from the at least one electronic device based upon the determined direction of the second display facing substantially downward or toward an operator of the at least one mobile communications device, as set forth in the independent claims. App. Br. 10-11. Appellants rely on the foregoing for all pending claims. See, generally, Appeal Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 2. 3 Appeal2015-003165 Application 13/034,006 The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device display orientations and subsequent signaling of Alameh, with the device housing and display features as a reference of the device's orientation in order to define the data transfer direction of Ahlgren, along with the data transfer controlling functions based on the orientations of devices involved in the transfer of Hodges in order to establish a convention to control in which direction (transmit/receive/ exchange) data transfers should occur (e.g., towards or away from the second device) depending on the orientation of the second display facing upward or downward, and thereby meet in combination all the limitations of the claimed invention. Ans. 15. Appellants reply that Alameh "makes no reference to the orientation of the display other than it is associated with a first side of the device," and Ahlgren and Alameh "fail to teach that the direction of data transfer is based upon a direction in which the display of the mobile device is facing." Reply Br. 2. Appellants assert that the Examiner is "improperly making a series of logical leaps that are not supported by the prior art and that are improperly based upon Appellants' specification." Id. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection (Ans. 2--4), Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 2), and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments (Ans. 14--15). We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's findings and conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of the cited references. Specifically, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments against Alameh alone or the combination of Ahlgren and Alameh only (Reply Br. 2), because the Examiner's rejection relies on the combined teachings of Hodges, Ahlgren, and Alameh (Ans. 14--15). And we are unpersuaded of 4 Appeal2015-003165 Application 13/034,006 error based on Appellants' general allegation that the Examiner's rejection improperly makes "a series of logical leaps that are not supported by the prior art and that are improperly based upon Appellants' specification" (Reply Br. 2) because Appellants do not identify the supposedly improper leaps. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject all pending claims in view of the foregoing. DECISION We sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, and22. 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§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRivIED 5