Invensense, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2021

2020006560 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 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.
15/410,694 01/19/2017 Rahul BAKSHI IVS-662 6910
145254 7590 04/13/2021
InvenSense C/O Morris Patent Law, P.C., L.L.O.
450 Terrie Road
Aurora, NE 68818
EXAMINER
ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2021 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):
jeff@morrispatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAHUL BAKSHI and ARDALAN HESHMATI
____________

Appeal 2020-006560
Application 15/410,694
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–6, 8–12, 14–23, and 25–28. 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. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed March 23, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 21,
2020) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 20, 2019).
Appellant identifies InvenSense, Inc. as the real party in interest (Appeal
Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-006560
Application 15/410,694

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to a method for associating a single
entity with multiple electronic devices (Spec., Abstr.).
Claims 1, 15, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of associating a single entity with
multiple electronic devices, said method comprising:
[(a)] accessing, by a server, user data collected via
internet communications with a plurality of electronic devices,
wherein each item of user data includes a location signature
which includes geolocation data and a unique identifier;
[(b)] determining, by said server, an intersection of
location between two electronic devices of said plurality of
electronic devices based on said user data accessed from said two
electronic devices by:
[(b1)] creating, by said server, geo-polygons from
said geolocation data of said location signatures of said
user data accessed from said two electronic devices; and
[(b2)] determining, by said server, said intersection
between geo-polygons of said user data accessed from a
first of said two electronic devices and said user data
accessed from a second of said two electronic devices,
wherein said user data accessed from a first of said two
electronic devices has a first unique identifier that is
different than a second unique identifier of said user data
accessed from a second of said two electronic devices;
[(b3)] based on said intersection of location,
associating a single entity with both said first unique
identifier and said second unique identifier; and
[(b4)] based on a geographic extent of said
intersection, determining a confidence level of the
association.
Appeal 2020-006560
Application 15/410,694

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8–11, 14–17, 19, 21, and 25–28 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Fransen (US 10,244,057 B2, issued
Mar. 26, 2019).
Claims 2, 5, 6, 12, 18, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Fransen and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Fransen at least because Fransen does not disclose
“creating . . . geo-polygons from said geolocation data of said location
signatures of said user data accessed from said two electronic devices,” as
recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 15 and 17 (Appeal
Br. 10–11, 13–14, and 17).
Fransen is directed to a system and method for “accurately and
efficiently associating devices with a user profile and compiling use
information from such devices,” and discloses that devices are associated
with the same user profile based on identifying consistent proximity of the
devices to one another, e.g., by identifying that the devices are frequently
used in proximate locations during a time period, or by identifying that the
devices are paired with one another (Fransen 1:49–56). Fransen describes
that the term “proximate location” refers to devices being geographically or
communicatively close to one another according to one or more proximate
location criteria, e.g., within a threshold geographical distance of each other
Appeal 2020-006560
Application 15/410,694

4
or within the same boundary area associated with a single address or
geographical location, and that “pairing” refers to devices being linked
together in a way that allows direct communication between the devices (id.
at 4:41–56).
Referring to the drawings, Fransen discloses a block diagram in
Figure 2 (reproduced below) depicting an example of a system for local
association and compiling of device use information.

Figure 2 is a block diagram depicting an example of a system for
local association and collection of device use information
Appeal 2020-006560
Application 15/410,694

5
In this example, four devices, i.e., TV Company receiver 18, game
console 20, tablet 22, and smart phone 24, are selected as local collection
devices to collect use data from the other devices; these devices are
identified as being associated with a single user profile based on the
proximity of the devices, i.e., based on each of the devices having been used
on home network 4 with other ones of the devices during the same time
periods on more than five occasions (Fransen 5:11–22). In Figure 2, smart
watch 30 and car audio 32 are identified as associated with the same user
profile as smart phone 24 based on these devices having been paired with
smart phone 24; barbeque thermometer 28 and Bluetooth headphones 26
similarly are associated with the same user profile based on direct
connections with tablet 22 (id. at 5:41–46).
Fransen discloses that, in one example, information is sent from
barbeque thermometer 28 to smart phone 24 that identifies a pattern, e.g.,
that the thermometer has been used for steak four Sundays in a row; based
on this pattern, smart phone 24 selects and displays a “steak” advertisement
to the user on a Saturday or early in the day on a Sunday (Fransen 5:53-57).
In another example, information about smart watch 30 executing a golf
course distance application every Saturday morning for five weeks in a row
is tracked and provided to TV Company receiver 18, which uses this
information to provide golf-targeted advertising on household television
devices (id. at 5:57–62).
In rejecting independent claims 1, 15, and 17 as anticipated by
Fransen, the Examiner takes the position that Fransen’s identification of a
device’s pattern of use teaches the argued limitation (Final Act. 3–4). Yet,
we fail to see how, and the Examiner does not explain how, noting a pattern
Appeal 2020-006560
Application 15/410,694

6
of days or times that a device or an application is used discloses, either
expressly or implicitly, “creating . . . geopolygons from said geolocation
data of said location signatures of said user data accessed from said two
electronic devices,” as called for in claim 1, and similarly called for in
claims 15 and 17.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 15,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 8–11, 14, 16, 19,
21, and 25–28.
Obviousness
Each of claims 2, 5, 6, and 12 depends, directly or indirectly, from
independent claim 1, and claims 18, 20, 22, and 23 depend, directly or
indirectly, from independent claim 17. The rejection of these dependent
claims does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 17. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 12, 18, 20, 22, and 23 for the same
reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claims.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 8–
11, 14–17,
19, 21,
25–28
102(a)(2) Fransen 1, 3, 4, 8–
11, 14–17,
19, 21,
25–28
Appeal 2020-006560
Application 15/410,694

7
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 5, 6, 12,
18, 20, 22,
23
103 Fransen, Official
Notice
2, 5, 6, 12,
18, 20, 22,
23
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–12,
14–23,
25–28
REVERSED