Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2020005488 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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