Ex Parte Trethewey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 12, 201813608356 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/608,356 09/10/2012 James R. Trethewey P45985 1082 104333 7590 03/14/2018 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. 13231 Champion Forest Drive Suite 410 Houston, TX 77069 EXAMINER MA, TIZE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2018 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): eofficeaction @ appcoll.com Intel_Docketing @ iiplg.com inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES R. TRETHEWEY, DAVID M. PUTZOLU, and KELLY HAMMOND Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,3561 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—15 and 17—30. Appellants have canceled claim 16. App. Br. 27. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to sensor controllers and, more particularly, “to providing display articulation data from a sensor controller to an operating system.” Spec. 11. According to the Specification, the disclosed invention provides support for detecting articulation states of a display in relation to the base of a device— particularly devices having a folding or clamshell design—when the device is in a non-tablet or non-slate orientation. Spec. 12. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'. 1. A system, comprising: a sensor controller communicatively coupled to a plurality of sensors comprising an articulation detection hardware to gather display articulation data and an internally packaged sensor, the sensor controller to generate formatted display articulation data and provide the formatted display articulation data to a driver, wherein the driver is executed by an operating system to enable the sensor controller to communicate the formatted display articulation data to an application executed by the operating system. The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1—8, 10-12, 15, 17—20, and 26—28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nachman et al. (US 2012/0254878 Al; Oct. 4, 2012) (“Nachman”); Shimotono et al. (US 2008/0129666 Al; June 5, 2008) (“Shimotono”); Helmes et al. (US 2012/0081275 Al; Apr. 5, 2012) (“Helmes”); STMicroelectronics, Tilt measurement using a low-g 3-axis accelerometer, Application Note AN 2 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 3182, 1—18 (Rev. 1, 04/2010) (“STMicroelectronics”); Kurt Seifert and Oscar Camacho, Implementing Positioning Algorithms Using Accelerometers, Application Note AN3397, 1—13 (Rev. 0, 02/2007) (“Seifert”); and HobbyTronics, Accelerometer and Gyro Integration, https://web.archive.Org/web/20120103014100/http://www.hobbytronics.co.u k/accelerometer-gyro (last visited January 3, 2012) (“HobbyTronics”). Final Act. 2—8. 2. Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nachman, Shimotono, Helmes, STMicroelectronics, Seifert, HobbyTronics, and Lu et al. (US 2007/0228164 Al; Oct. 4, 2007) (“Lu”). Final Act. 8-9. 3. Claim 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nachman, Shimotono, Helmes, STMicroelectronics, Seifert, HobbyTronics, and Cakir et al. (US 2005/0094887 Al; May 5, 2005) (“Cakir”). Final Act. 9-11. 4. Claim 14 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nachman, Shimotono, Helmes, STMicroelectronics, Seifert, HobbyTronics, Cakir, and Diard (US 2011/0161675 Al; June 30, 2011). Final Act. 11-13. 5. Claims 21 and 29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nachman, Shimotono, Helmes, STMicroelectronics, Seifert, HobbyTronics, and Stevenson et al. (US 2009/0109126 Al; Apr. 30, 2009) (“Stevenson”). Final Act. 13-14. 6. Claims 22 and 30 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nachman, Shimotono, Helmes, 3 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 STMicroelectronics, Seifert, HobbyTronics, and Kristensson et al. (US 2008/0280641 Al; Nov. 13, 2008) (“Kristensson”). Final Act. 14—15. 7. Claims 23—25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nachman, Shimotono, Helmes, STMicroelectronics, Seifert, HobbyTronics, and Kobayashi (US 2013/0044335 Al; Feb. 21, 2013). Final Act. 15-17. ANALYSIS2 Claims 1—15, 17—22, and 26—30 Appellants assert that Nachman, as relied on by the Examiner does not teach “articulation detection hardware” and, therefore, cannot teach “display articulation data.” App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 3^4. In particular, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that “data from the sensors, such as accelerometers and light sensors” is articulation data because “‘accelerometers and light sensors’ are not equivalent to articulation detection hardware.” Reply Br. 4. Additionally, Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s finding that because it can be used to determine position and orientation of a display relative to a base, data from the sensors—such as STMicroelectronics’ tri-axial accelerometer used for laptop lid open/close detection—is articulation data. Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue the claimed display articulation data “is not merely indicative of a laptop lid open/close detection.” Reply Br. 4. 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed June 17, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 8, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 8, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed November 17, 2015 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. 4 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description.”). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill- Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Further, when construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the claims from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, we find Appellants have acted as their own lexicographer regarding the term “display articulation.” In particular, Appellants set forth in the Specification that “the term ‘display articulation’ is used to refer to an angular positioning and/or linear extension of a display in relation to a base of the computing device.” Spec. 1 8. However, regarding the claim terms 5 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 “display articulation data” and “articulation detection hardware,” Appellants do not define these terms in the claims or Specification. Instead, Appellants merely provide non-limiting descriptions of exemplary embodiments of what may qualify as display articulation data or articulation detection hardware. See Spec. ]Hf 17, 23. In particular, the Specification sets forth: “display articulation data may include a lid state indicator . . . [t]he lid state indicator may indicate if the display device of a computing device is open or closed.” Spec. 117. Additionally, articulation detection hardware may be “external hardware connected to the sensor controller . . . [and sensors] may be internally packaged or externally connected sensor hardware devices and may include, for example, a magnetometer 204, a gyrometer 206, an accelerometer 208, and any other suitable sensor.” Spec. 123. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s claim interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.3 Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 2—3) that the claimed “articulation detection hardware to gather display articulation data” is taught or suggested by the sensors described by Nachman (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope, light sensor), as further modified by the teachings of STMicroelectronics (teaching the use of an accelerometer for laptop lid open/close detection), and Seifert (using accelerometers for positioning algorithms), in further combination with HobbyTronics (teaching the use of gyrometers to calculate a tilt angle). 3 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). 6 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 Appellants also assert Nachman fails to teach a sensor controller to generate formatted display articulation data. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 1—3. In particular, Appellants argue Nachman “merely discloses ‘various virtual sensors’” and that calculating a virtual sensor using data from a physical sensor is not the same thing as formatting sensor data. App. Br. 12—13. Further, Appellants contend formatted display articulation data “is defined as display articulation data converted to ‘a generic data structure or format compliant with a Human Interface Device (HID) specification promulgated by the Universal Serial Bus Implementer’s Forum and recognized by the operating system.’” App. Br. 13 (quoting Spec. 118). As an initial matter, we note the Specification broadly describes “[f]ormatting may comprise'1'’ the type of data conversion identified by Appellants. Spec 118 (emphasis added). As the Examiner identifies, Nachman describes the sensor hub processor as serving as an “intermediate level processing agent” between the sensors and the application processor. Nachman 117; see also Ans. 3^4. We agree with the Examiner that the sensor hub processor that processes high level data in Nachman teaches or suggests “a sensor controller to generate formatted display articulation data” as claimed. Ans. 3^4. Additionally, Appellants argue Shimotono does not teach “wherein the driver is executed by an operating system to enable the sensor controller to communicate the formatted display articulation data to an application executed by the operating system.” App. Br. 15. Appellants assert Shimotono does not describe a sensor controller or the communication of any sensor data to a user application. App. Br. 15 (citing Shimotono, Fig. 3). 7 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Shimotono describes an operating system supporting a user application and receiving data from a plurality of drivers, including a driver associated with an acceleration sensor (i.e., an accelerometer). See Shimotono 126, Fig. 3; Final Act. 4. In particular, as shown in Figure 3 of Shimotono, an acceleration sensor (51) provides data to embedded controller (49), which provides data to acceleration sensor driver (109). Shimotono 126, Fig. 3. The acceleration sensor driver is executed by the operating system (103). Shimotono 126. Thus, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the operating system in Nachman with Shimotono’s operating system executing the driver to enable the sensor controller to communicate formatted display articulation data to an application to “achieve [] the predictable result of providing sensor data to context aware applications.” Final Act. 4; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). For the reasons discussed supra, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 7, 15, and 27, which recite similar limitations and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 15. 8 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 Additionally, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—6, 8, 10— 12, 17—20, 26, and 28, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 9, 13, 14, 21, 22, 29, and 30, Appellants argue the additional references cited do not cure the deficiencies alleged in the rejection of the independent claims. See App. Br. 15—21. Because we do not find the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims to be in error, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants’ arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9, 13, 14, 21, 22, 29, and 30. Claims 23—25 Claim 23 depends from claim 19, which depends from independent claim 15, and recites “the user providing instructions as to whether to combine the data [(i.e., data from the articulation detection hardware and data from the internally packaged sensor)] in the sensor controller or in the application.” In rejecting claim 23, the Examiner finds Nachman discloses the user, the sensor controller, and the application (Final Act. 15 (citing Nachman 127, Figs. 2, 3 A)), and explains Kobayashi teaches “the user may select the module to perform the process.” Final Act. 15 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, the Examiner finds Kobayashi provides a GUI to allow a user to select a module to process printing activities. Ans. 5—6 (citing Kobayashi, Fig. 24). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to have modified the location for combining the 9 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 data disclosed in Nachman” as taught by Kobayashi to allow a user to configure a system that best suits their needs. Final Act. 15—16. Appellants argue neither Kobayashi nor the other cited prior art references of record disclose modifying a location, or otherwise providing instructions on whether to combine data from the articulation detection hardware and the internally packaged sensor in the sensor controller or in the application. App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 4—5. Instead, Appellants contend Kobayashi is directed to allowing a user to determine where a print scaling operation is to be performed. Reply Br. 4—5 (citing Kobayashi 1158). Kobayashi is generally directed to a print control method and, in particular, to (i) determining whether a process related to a print scaling process is included in print settings; (ii) comparing the processing capacity of an image forming apparatus (e.g., a printer) with the processing capacity of an information processing apparatus (e.g., a computer); and (iii) determining whether to perform the print scaling process in the image forming apparatus or information processing apparatus based on the comparison of processing capacity results. Kobayashi 114; see also Kobayashi H 90-104, Fig. 13. Kobayashi also discloses allowing a user to select a module where the scaling process should be performed. Kobayashi 1158, Fig. 24. We are mindful that the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, the Examiner has not fully developed the record by providing sufficient persuasive technical reasoning and evidence regarding how allowing a user to select 10 Appeal 2017-001581 Application 13/608,356 where a printer scaling process occurs (as taught by Kobayashi), in combination with the teaching of Nachman, would have taught or suggested the claim limitation of “providing instructions as to whether to combine the data in the sensor controller or in the application.” For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 23.4 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15, 17—22, and 26—30 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23—25 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37C.F.R. §41.50(f)(2015). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 4 We note claim 23 recites, inter alia, “the user providing instructions.” However, there is no antecedent basis for “the user.” In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether claim 23 comports with the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation