Ex Parte Peterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 2018

14585222 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/585,222 12/30/2014 Kevin Charles Peterson 16621 7590 07/02/2018 Morris & Kamlay LLP / 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. 030120-201810US 5911 EXAMINER TRAN, THANG DUC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2018 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 KEVIN CHARLES PETERSON, SOPHIE LE GUEN, Y ASH MODI, and WLIA DEIULIIS 1 Appeal 2017-011848 Application 14/585,222 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Non- Final Rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant is the applicant, Google Inc., which the Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-011848 Application 14/585,222 Invention The Specification discloses a sensor package with a compass. Abstract. The compass can be kept in a dormant mode until it receives a request to provide data. Spec. ,r 25. Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized) 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: maintaining a compass in a sleep mode to conserve energy; changing the sleep mode to an awake mode for the compass upon an occurrence of one or more conditions selected from the group consisting of: a detection of a movement of an object by an accelerometer; a detection of a change in a position of the object by a magnetic sensor; and a time of awakening based on a predetermined schedule, wherein the compass consumes more energy in the awake mode than in the sleep mode; when the compass is in the awake mode, receiving an orientation signal from the compass; and determining a change in the orientation of the object based at least upon the orientation signal from the compass. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1---6 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dumas et al. (US 2014/0292481 Al; published Oct. 2, 2014) ("Dumas") and Nasiri et al. (US 2012/0007713 Al; published Jan. 12, 2012) ("Nasiri"). Non-Final Act. 2-18. The Examiner rejects claims 7-12 and 24--29 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, and Fadell et al. (US 2014/ 0266669; published Sept. 18, 2014) ("Fadell"). Non-Final Act. 18-29. 2 Appeal 2017-011848 Application 14/585,222 The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, and Addy et al. (US 2003/0071739 Al; published Apr. 17, 2003) ("Addy"). Non-Final Act. 29-34. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, Addy, and Yulkowski (US 2010/0242368 Al; published Sept. 30, 2010) ("Yulkowski"). Non-Final Act. 34--36. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, Addy, and Bergman et al. (US 2008/ 0018474 Al; published Jan. 24, 2008) ("Bergman"). Non-Final Act. 36-37. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dumas, Nasiri, Addy, and Fadell. Non-Final Act. 37-38. FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS Dumas discloses use of a compass for proximity detection. See Non- Final Act. 3 ( citing, e.g., Dumas ,r 181 ). Nasiri also discloses use of a compass, but for use in a handheld device to stabilize a gyroscope bias in a yaw direction. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g., Nasiri ,r 41). Nasiri further discloses that the device can enter a sleep mode to reduce power consumption. Non-Final Act. 6; see also Nasiri ,r 77; Ans. 3. Based on these teachings and suggestions, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify Dumas to include steps directed to maintaining a compass in a sleep mode to conserve energy and changing the sleep mode to an awake mode for the compass upon an occurrence of one or more conditions. See Non-Final Act. 5-6. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the "compass disclosed by N asiri 'provid[ es] data for a microprocessor,' but N asiri does not teach or suggest 'changing [a] sleep mode to an awake mode for the 3 Appeal 2017-011848 Application 14/585,222 compass upon an occurrence of one or more conditions.' " App. Br. 7. Appellant argues that N asiri' s teaching "that a main processor of a handheld device can be woken when it is picked up by a user ... is ... unrelated to any change of state of a compass in such a device." Reply Br. 5. ANALYSIS We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. Nasiri teaches having device 1000 enter into a sleep mode and switch back to an active mode. Nasiri ,r 77. However, the Examiner's findings do not show that the device's compass enters a sleep mode. Rather Nasiri's compass is included as part of inertial sensor module 1016, itself included as part of motion processing unit 1012. Id. ,r 72; see also id. at Fig. 10. Importantly, Nasiri states "motional processing unit 1012 remains running (i.e. active) when handheld device 1000 is in the sleep mode and continues to monitor for any motion commands." Id. ,r 77. This suggests that Nasiri's compass is not put into a sleep mode when the device itself is in sleep mode, but is kept in an active mode along with the motional processing unit in which the compass is included. Thus, the cited teachings ofNasiri directed to handheld device 1000 changing to different modes of operation ( e.g., sleep or active) fail to teach or suggest maintaining a compass in a sleep mode and changing the sleep mode to an awake mode for the compass in the manner recited in claim 1. Dumas teaches both the use of a compass for proximity detection (Dumas ,r 181) and "a proximity sensor triggered wake-up operation" (id. ,r 149). However, the wake-up operation of Dumas relates to the use of a proximity detector to wake up a radio rather than to wake up the proximity 4 Appeal 2017-011848 Application 14/585,222 detector's compass. Id. ,r 150. Therefore, the cited teachings of Dumas do not cure the deficiency ofNasiri. The Examiner does not show that the other cited references cure the noted deficiency ofNasiri. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejection of claim 1, or the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejections of claims 2-29, which contain similar recitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-29. REVERSED 5