Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2022

2020006729 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2022)

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. 15/666,712 08/02/2017 Ryan Charles Knudson RPS920170076- US-NP 18-42 9248 124906 7590 03/31/2022 The Small Patent Law Group LLC 1423 Strassner Dr. Suite 100 Brentwood, MO 63144 EXAMINER ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2022 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): docket@splglaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com jleclair@splglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYAN CHARLES KNUDSON, RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON, RODERICK ECHOLS, and JONATHAN GAITHER KNOX Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “[g]rouping electronic devices to coordinate action based on context awareness.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: under control of one or more processors configured with executable instructions; receiving a user instruction to perform an action; identifying context awareness information concerning an environment where the action is to be performed, the environment including a plurality of candidate electronic devices, at least one of the candidate electronic devices to provide digital personal assistant (DPA) functionality; grouping a collection of one or more responsive electronic devices, from the plurality of candidate electronic devices, based on the context awareness information; and communicating the instruction to the collection of one or more responsive electronic devices to coordinate the action by the responsive collection. Appeal Br. 43 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Maes US 2002/0135618 A1 Sept. 26, 2002 Ramaswamy US 2013/0205311 A1 Aug. 8, 2013 Oughriss US 2014/0118616 A1 May 1, 2014 Gourlay US 2014/0319232 A1 Oct. 30, 2014 Bezar US 2015/0170638 A1 June 18, 2015 Helm US 2016/0078870 A1 Mar. 17, 2016 Wang US 2017/0053110 A1 Feb. 23, 2017 Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Wang. Final Act. 4-9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang and Helm. Final Act. 9-10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang and Oughriss. Final Act. 10-11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang and Gourlay. Final Act. 11-12. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang and Bezar. Final Act. 12-13. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang, Ramaswamy, and Maes. Final Act. 13-15. OPINION The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16-19 by Wang The Examiner finds Wang describes all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Wang describes “identifying context awareness information concerning an environment where the action is to be performed” (claim 1) because Wang describes “the iPhone acquires information about multiple adjacent devices, including information about Apple IDs used to log in to the multiple adjacent devices.” Final Act. 4-5 (citing Wang ¶ 152); see also Ans. 3-9 (citing Wang ¶¶ 152, 223). Appellant’s present the following principal argument: Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 4 Wang does not disclose “identifying context awareness information concerning an environment where the action is to be performed.” Appeal Br. 21. Regarding the Office’s interpretation of “context awareness information”, an Apple ID is an authentication method used by Apple for iPhone, iPad, Mac and other Apple devices. Apple IDs contain user personal information and settings. When an Apple ID is used to log into an Apple device, the device will automatically use the settings associated with the Apple ID. Wang discusses, upon a user initiating a task handoff function at a first device, the first device acquiring information about multiple adjacent devices so the user can select, from the multiple adjacent devices, a second device for performing task handoff. (See Wang, paragraph [0152].) Using an iPhone to acquire information about Apple IDs used to log into multiple adjacent devices is simply not equivalent to Appellant’s “identifying context awareness information[.]” The action of using an iPhone to acquire information about Apple IDs used to log into multiple adjacent devices does not identify information indicative of a condition present in an environment (or a physical region) in which one or more electronic devices are located. For example, using an iPhone to acquire information about Apple IDs used to log into multiple adjacent devices does nothing whatsoever to identify anything even close to the proximal range of a user to any electronic device within an environment or current activities underway in the environment and is certainly not identified based on anything close to a history of device usage, a status of the electronic devices, a time and/or date, the location or environment of the user, the proximity of the user to the DPA device or electronic devices, and a presence of non- users in one or more corresponding environments. Appeal Br. 26-27. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 5 During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key disputed limitation is “identifying context awareness information concerning an environment where the action is to be performed” (claim 1). In particular, this appeal turns on the meaning of the term “context awareness information.” Appellant’s Specification discloses: The term “context awareness information” refers to information indicative of a condition present in an environment in which one or more electronic devices are located. Nonlimiting examples of context awareness information include a proximal range of a user and/or nonusers to electronic devices within an environment and current activities underway in regions surrounding corresponding electronic devices. Spec. ¶ 23. Appellant’s Specification further discloses: The context awareness information refers to information indicative of a condition present in an environment in which one or more electronic devices are located. Nonlimiting examples of context awareness information including a proximal range of a user and/or nonusers to electronic devices within an environment, current activities underway in regions surrounding corresponding electronic devices. The context awareness Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 6 information may represent device usage data from a smart phone, tablet device, computer, etc., such as device usage data indicating that an individual is currently engaged in a phone conversation, work related activity, reading a book, watching a different program, listening to different music on the smart phone, tablet device or computer. Optionally, the context awareness information may represent calendar data obtained from an electronic calendar maintained in the cloud, and/or on a smart phone, tablet device, computer or other electronic device. Optionally, the context awareness information may represent sleep habit data obtained from an electronic device, such as a smart phone utilized by the individual to set an alarm, enter a do not disturb indication and the like. Spec. ¶ 52. In light of Appellant’s Specification, we interpret “context awareness information” as information indicative of a condition present in an environment in which one or more electronic devices are located. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 52. Appellant’s Specification describes examples of a condition present as including a proximal range of a person to an electronic device, and a current activity of a person. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 52. We recognize that these examples are not strictly limiting because they are not a part of the claim, but they do give us a sense of what is meant by a condition present, and thus, what is meant by “context awareness information”-what is presently happening near the electronic device? Wang discloses “The iPhone acquires information about multiple adjacent devices, including information about Apple IDs used to log in to the multiple adjacent devices.” Wang ¶ 152. Wang further discloses “a first device iPad discovers multiple adjacent devices by using Bluetooth or WiFi, and acquires identifiers of the Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 7 multiple adjacent devices, such as a hash value of an Apple ID.” Wang ¶ 223. Given our interpretation of the key disputed limitation, we determine the Examiner erred in finding Wang describes the key disputed limitation. In short, we determine that the Apple IDs used to log in to nearby devices are not “context awareness information” because the Apple IDs are not information indicative of a condition present in an environment in which one or more electronic devices are located. More specifically, the Apple IDs do indicate a condition present because they do not indicate what is presently happening near the electronic device, they only indicate the Apple ID used at some previous point in time to log in to the device. This is not “context awareness information” in the same sense that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim to require in light of Appellant’s Specification. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-8, which depend from claim 1. Independent claim 10 recites the same key disputed limitation. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 10. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17, which depend from claim 10. Independent claim 18 recites the same key disputed limitation. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 18. We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 19, which depends from claim 18. Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 8 The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 9 over Wang and Helm The Examiner does not find Helm cures the deficiency of Wang. See Final Act. 9-10. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 9. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 12 over Wang and Oughriss The Examiner does not find Oughriss cures the deficiency of Wang. See Final Act. 10-11. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 12. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 15 over Wang and Gourlay The Examiner does not find Gourlay cures the deficiency of Wang. See Final Act. 11-12. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 15. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 20 over Wang and Bezar The Examiner does not find Bezar cures the deficiency of Wang. Final Act. 12-13. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 20. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 21 over Wang, Ramaswamy, and Maes The Examiner does not find Ramaswamy or Maes cures the deficiency of Wang. Final Act. 13-15. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 21. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21 is reversed. Appeal 2020-006729 Application 15/666,712 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16- 19 102 Wang 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16- 19 9 103 Wang, Helm 9 12 103 Wang, Oughriss 12 15 103 Wang, Gourlay 15 20 103 Wang, Bezar 20 21 103 Wang, Ramaswamy, Maes 21 Overall Outcome 1-21 REVERSED