Invensense, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 13, 20212020006560 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 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. 15/410,694 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation