Google LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 20212020005488 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021) 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. 15/840,813 12/13/2017 Yoky Matsuoka 094021-1061343 5981 125802 7590 12/02/2021 Google LLC - Nest Labs / Kilpatrick Townsend Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER HUYNH, AN SON PHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2021 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com googlepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOKY MATSUOKA Appeal 2020-005488 Application 15/840,813 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google LLC. See Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Dec. 13, 2017; Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 26, 2020; Supplemental Appeal Brief (“Supp. Appeal Br.”) filed May 1, 2020; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July 20, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Appeal 2020-005488 Application 15/840,813 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, relates generally to “an asymmetrical video communication system.” See Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, Appellant’s claims are directed to asymmetrical video communication systems and methods of asymmetrical video communication using a cloud-based communication server system. The server system receives a user log in request for a user account linked with a (video and audio) capture device (e.g., a video security camera), and also receives an indication of a default contact and a secondary contact. Responsive to detecting an acceleration of the capture device over a predefined acceleration threshold, the capture device sends an asymmetrical video communication request to the server system (and the request is received by the server system), where the secondary contact is linked to an acceleration pattern (e.g., a specific pattern including a series of taps) and the default contact is linked to other instances of acceleration over the predefined acceleration threshold. The server system then determines the user account that is linked with the video and audio capture device from which the acceleration-triggered asymmetrical video communication request was received and selects a contact (from the default contact and the secondary contact) with which to establish a video communication link. The server system then establishes the video communication link between the contact (an application executed by a mobile device of the contact) and the capture device. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–5; Abstr. Claim 1 (directed to a system) and claim Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Nov. 22, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 18, 2020. Appeal 2020-005488 Application 15/840,813 3 12 (directed to a method) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An asymmetrical video communication system, comprising: an application executed using one or more processors of a mobile device, wherein the mobile device comprises a mobile device display; a mobile device microphone; and a mobile device speaker; and a video and audio capture device, comprising: a housing; one or more processors housed by the housing; a video camera housed by the housing; a microphone housed by the housing; a speaker housed by the housing; and an accelerometer housed by the housing, wherein: the video and audio capture device does not have a video display; in response to detecting an acceleration of the housing over a predefined acceleration threshold, an acceleration-triggered asymmetrical video communication request is caused to be transmitted to a cloud-based communication server system; and the cloud-based communication server system is configured to: receive, from a device, a request to log into a user account of a plurality of user accounts, wherein the user account is linked with the video and audio capture device; receive, from the device while logged into the user account, an indication of a default contact and a secondary contact, wherein: the secondary contact is linked to an acceleration pattern; and the default contact is linked to other instances of acceleration over the predefined acceleration threshold; receive the acceleration-triggered asymmetrical video communication request from the video and audio capture device; Appeal 2020-005488 Application 15/840,813 4 determine the user account from the plurality of user accounts that is linked with the video and audio capture device from which the acceleration-triggered asymmetrical video communication request was received; select the default contact from the default contact and the secondary contact with which to establish an acceleration-triggered asymmetrical video communication link based on detecting the acceleration of the housing over the predefined acceleration threshold and comparing to the acceleration pattern; establish the acceleration-triggered asymmetrical video communication link between the application executed by the mobile device of the contact and the video and audio capture device based on the acceleration pattern, wherein: video and audio captured using the video and audio capture device are streamed via the cloud-based communication server system to the application and audio captured by the mobile device is streamed via the cloud-based communication server system to the video and audio capture device; and video is not streamed from the mobile device to the cloud-based communication server system or to the video and audio capture device. Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Appeal 2020-005488 Application 15/840,813 5 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Bergstrom et al. (“Bergstrom”) US 2008/0168348 A1 July 10, 2008 Kelso et al. (“Kelso”) US 2009/0207993 A1 Aug. 20, 2009 Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2011/0053577 A1 Mar. 3, 2011 Scalisi US 2017/0048495 A1 Feb. 16, 2017 Siminoff et al. (“Siminoff”) US 2017/0251035 A1 Aug. 31, 2017 REJECTION3 The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Siminoff, Scalisi, Lee, and Bergstrom or Kelso. See Final Act. 5–24. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent claim 12, and dependent claims 2–11 and 13–20) as being obvious over Siminoff, Scalisi, Lee, and either Bergstrom or Kelso. See Final Act. 5–14; Ans. 22–25. The Examiner relies on Siminoff for many features recited in claim 1, but finds “Siminoff does not explicitly disclose detecting an acceleration over a predefined acceleration threshold and comparing the acceleration pattern,” “receiving an indication of a default contact and a secondary contact, wherein the secondary contact is linked to an acceleration pattern[,] and the default contact is linked to other instances of acceleration 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2020-005488 Application 15/840,813 6 over the predefined acceleration threshold.” Final Act. 9; see Final Act 5– 14; Ans. 22–25. The Examiner relies on Scalisi for detecting an acceleration over a predefined threshold, as well as user accounts linked to a security system. See Final Act. 10–11; Ans. 22–25. The Examiner relies on Lee for teaching sending a communication request responsive to detecting an acceleration pattern and, in particular, an acceleration pattern linked with a contact (see Final Act. 13; Ans. 25). See Final Act. 11–14; Ans. 22–25 (citing Lee ¶¶ 4, 30, 32, 34, 36, 41, 49–55; 60–73, 80–83; Figs. 4, 10A, 10B, 12, and 15–18). Finally, the Examiner relies on Bergstrom or Kelso for the “indication of a default contact and secondary contact, and select the default contact from the default contact and secondary contact” (Final Act. 13). See Final Act. 13–14. Appellant contends that the combination of Siminoff, Scalisi, Lee, and Bergstrom or Kelso does not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 2–4. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that “Lee is deficient in proving obvious the concept of a selecting a default contact with which to establish an acceleration-triggered asymmetrical video communication link” (Reply Br. 3) and “[r]egardless of how” the references (Siminoff, Scalisi, Lee, and Bergstrom or Kelso) are combined, “these combined references fail to” teach this feature (Appeal Br. 9). See Appeal Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 2–4. We agree with Appellant that Lee in combination with Siminoff, Scalisi, and either Bergstrom or Kelso does not teach or suggest a “cloud- based communication server system. . . configured to” “select the default contact from the default contact and the secondary contact” (selecting between the default contact and the secondary contact) “with which to establish an acceleration-triggered asymmetrical video communication link Appeal 2020-005488 Application 15/840,813 7 based on detecting the acceleration of the housing over the predefined acceleration threshold and comparing to the acceleration pattern” where “the secondary contact is linked to an acceleration pattern” and “the default contact is linked to other instances of acceleration over the predefined acceleration threshold” (Claim 1) (Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.)). See Appeal Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 2–4. Although the cited portion of Lee describes vibration patterns associated with contacts (see, e.g., Lee ¶ 60), as pointed out by Appellant, Lee does not show selecting a default contact when no match to a particular pattern is found—“in Lee, when acceleration is detected that does not match a stored pattern, nothing happens. In the Appellant's claimed arrangement, when acceleration is detected that does not match the acceleration pattern of the secondary contact, the default contact is selected and a communication session with the default contact is established.” Reply Br. 3. The cited portion of Lee does not show vibration (i.e., acceleration) patterns associated with different contacts and selecting a contact “based on detecting the acceleration of the housing over the predefined acceleration threshold and comparing to the acceleration pattern” where “the default contact is linked to other instances of acceleration over the predefined acceleration threshold” (claim 1). The Examiner does not explain sufficiently how Lee’s vibration patterns associated with contacts in combination with Siminoff, Scalisi, and either Bergstrom or Kelso, teaches selecting a default contact associated with an acceleration over a threshold and that is not associated with a particular pattern associated with other contacts (e.g., a secondary contact). Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Siminoff, Scalisi, Lee, and Bergstrom or Kelso renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Appeal 2020-005488 Application 15/840,813 8 Independent claim 12 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2–11 and 13–20 depend from and stand with their respective base claims. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1– 20. CONCLUSION Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Siminoff, Scalisi, Lee, Bergstrom 1–20 1–20 103 Siminoff, Scalisi, Lee, Kelso 1–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation