Ex Parte PODURI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2019

14044775 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/044,775 10/02/2013
15093 7590 02/26/2019
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sameera PODURI
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.
131081 (866938) 7192
EXAMINER
HENSON, MISCHITA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2019 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMEERA PODURI, DISHA AHUJA,
VICTOR KULIK, PAY AMP AKZAD, and RA VIP ALANKI
Appeal 2018-003108
Application 14/044,775
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks our review of the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 11-33, and 35--40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Final 9; App. Br. 6.
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Qualcomm Incorporated, which is also
identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-003108
Application 14/044, 77 5
SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal relates to "[p ]edometers and step
detectors based on inertial sensors [which] have found various applications
in fitness, health monitoring, positioning systems, and more." Spec. ,r 2.
Accurately detecting steps via a mobile device, such as a mobile phone, is
problematic "because the mobile device can be carried in any of a variety of
locations (e.g., a pedestrian's hand, pocket, purse, etc.) and [is] subject to
combined motion" such as a swinging arm. Id. "As such, step detection in
mobile devices performed when such swinging is occurring can be highly
inaccurate." Id. The invention purports to address such inaccuracies. Id.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is
copied below with key limitations italicized for emphasis:
1. A method of swing compensation in step detection, the
method comprising:
obtaining acceleration data indicative of movement of a
mobile device;
determining whether the mobile device may be swinging
in a hand of a user of the mobile device, wherein the determining
whether the mobile device may be swinging in a hand of a user
of the mobile device comprises determining, with a processing
unit, that twice a frequency determined from the acceleration
data falls within a predetermined range of known step rates; and
outputting step data based on:
the acceleration data, and
the determination whether the mobile device may
be swinging in the hand of the user;
wherein outputting the step data comprises:
providing the step data to an application executed
by the mobile device, or
causing the mobile device to send the step data to a
separate device, or
2
Appeal 2018-003108
Application 14/044, 77 5
any combination thereof.
App. Br. 15.
OPINION
We review the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-9,
11-33, and 35--40-the sole rejection on appeal-under the recently
published revised guidance governing the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under the Memorandum,
we first determine whether the claims recite:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity, or mental processes); and, if so,
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum to the claims at
issue here, we determine that each independent claim 1, 18, 27, and 35
recites multiple abstract ideas - namely the mathematical concept of
performing a calculation, and the mental process of determining if a
calculated value falls within a range of other values.
Specifically, claim 1 recites a method of swing compensation,
comprising, inter alia, "obtaining acceleration data" from a mobile device,
and "determining whether the mobile device may be swinging in a hand of a
user of the mobile device [which] comprises determining, with a processing
unit, that twice a frequency determined from the acceleration data falls
within a predetermined range of known step rates" ( emphasis added). Thus,
3
Appeal 2018-003108
Application 14/044, 77 5
claim 1 requires multiplying the frequency value obtained from acceleration
data by a factor of 2 - a simple mathematical calculation. Claim 1 also
requires determining whether the calculated frequency value "falls within a
predetermined range of known step rates." Such a determination is a data
comparison that can be performed in the human mind.
Because independent claims 18, 27, and 35 contain similar limitations
as those recited in claim 1, they also recite the abstract ideas of performing a
mathematical calculation and a mental process. App. Br. 17-18, 19-20, 21.
Consistent with the Memorandum's guidance, because each of the
independent claims recites multiple abstract ideas, we now tum to whether
the independent claims integrate those abstract ideas into a practical
application, and are, thus, patent eligible. Upon review of the Specification,
as well as Appellant's arguments set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs,
we determine that these claims are directed to the practical application of
improving step detection accuracy in a mobile device, and are patent eligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Here, the Specification informs us that step detection in a mobile
device "can be highly inaccurate" when the user's arm is swinging, and that
the invention is concerned with "increasing step detection accuracy in
mobile devices by determining whether such swinging is taking place."
Spee. ,r,r 2-3. The claimed method ( claim 1), apparatus ( claim 18), device
(claim 27), and software (claim 35) "purport to improve the functioning of ..
. the technical field" of step detection accuracy in a mobile device. Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014); see
Spec. ,r,r 5, 13, 61 ( explaining how "[ d]etermining whether the mobile
device may be swinging ... can include conducting a frequency analysis of
4
Appeal 2018-003108
Application 14/044, 77 5
the acceleration data," including determining a "frequency" (i.e., step-rate)
from acceleration data, and then determining whether twice that frequency
falls within a predetermined range of known step rates, and how the analysis
technique purports to provide increased step detection accuracy, and
"ultimately provid[ es] a better user experience" for individuals using a
pedometer or fitness/health monitoring applications on a mobile device).
In view of such purported improvements, and because the specific
techniques for realizing such purported improvements are recited in each
independent claim, we determine that the claims integrate the abstract ideas
recited therein into a practical application as set forth in the Memorandum.
It follows that these claims and the claims dependent therefrom are patent
eligible.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-33, and 35--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-33, and 35--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is reversed.
REVERSED
5