Ex Parte Ahonen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 7, 2012

10517001 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 7, 2012)

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.
10/517,001 05/31/2005 Petri Ahonen 915-013.005 8749
4955 7590 03/08/2012
WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP
BRADFORD GREEN, BUILDING 5
755 MAIN STREET, P O BOX 224
MONROE, CT 06468
EXAMINER
NAM, HYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETRI AHONEN
___________

Appeal 2009-014081
Application 10/517,001
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014081
Application 10/517,001

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-18, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to transmitting a firmware of a mobile
device from a network unit to be accessible for the mobile device and to be
programmed in the mobile device. The firmware of a mobile device
belonging to a network is updated using the mobile device, such that the
firmware is stored in an external memory unit of the mobile device. The
stored update data is programmed in the permanent memory unit of the
mobile device according to the programming logics. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving update data from a network unit at a mobile device of a
network, wherein a logic, external memory unit is connected with the mobile
device,
transferring the update data from the mobile device to the external
memory unit,
storing the update data in the external memory unit of the mobile
device,
programming the stored update data in a permanent memory unit of
the mobile device, according to programming logics provided by the mobile
device, and
updating a firmware of a mobile device according to the update data.

Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Toyoshima (U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0087759 A1;
July 4, 2002).
Appeal 2009-014081
Application 10/517,001

3

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 5-6; see
also Reply Br. 2) that Toyoshima does not describe the claim limitation
“updating a firmware of a mobile device according to the update data,” as
recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that updating code utilizing a wireless
module 200 of Toyoshima to a peripheral device corresponds to the
limitation “updating a firmware of a mobile device according to the update
data.” (Ans. 5, 11; Toyoshima, ¶ [0017].) We agree with the Examiner.
Toyoshima relates to a wireless module “for wirelessly updating code
to any appropriate peripheral device and may allow for wireless
communication with the desired peripheral device to update an operating
software code.” (Abstract.) In one embodiment, a wireless module 200
(e.g., a wireless telephone (¶ [0006])) (i.e., the claimed “mobile device”) is
utilized to update code (i.e., the claimed “firmware”) to a peripheral device
(i.e., the claimed “external device”), including storing a fail-safe code inside
the NAND FLASH 80 in the wireless module 200. (¶ [0017].)
Appellant argues that “[i]n the process of Toyoshima, firmware or
code of a peripheral device is updated, not firmware of the wireless
module.” (App. Br. 5.) In particular, Appellant argues that “Figure 2 of
Toyoshima is very clearly and succinctly described at Paragraph 11 of
Toyoshima: ‘for updating code to a peripheral device utilizing the wireless
module’” which is “the exact opposite of the present claimed invention,
which is for ‘updating a firmware of a mobile device’ using an external
memory unit.” (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-014081
Application 10/517,001

4
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, we
agree with the Examiner that Toyoshima describes the limitation “updating a
firmware of a mobile device according to the update data.” A relevant plain
meaning of “firmware” is “computer programs contained permanently in a
hardware device (as a read-only memory).” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 439 (10th ed. 1999). Because the update code of
Toyoshima, including the fail-safe code, is stored on the NAND FLASH 80
(i.e., a read-only memory) of the wireless module 200 (¶ [0017]), the claim
term “firmware” is broad enough to encompass the update code of
Toyoshima. In other words, the claim language “firmware of a mobile
device” only requires that the update code of Toyoshima be stored on the
NAND FLASH 80 (i.e., the claimed “firmware”) of the wireless module 200
(i.e., the claimed “mobile device”), rather than requiring such update code to
operate the wireless module 200.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Toyoshima describes the
limitation “updating a firmware of a mobile device according to the update
data.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 2-8 depend from independent claim 1, and
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1
Independent claims 9, 14, 16 and 17 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 9, 14, 16 and 17, as well as claims 10-13, 15
Appeal 2009-014081
Application 10/517,001

5
and 18, which depend from claims 9, 14 and 17, for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc