Ex Parte AhonenDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 7, 201210517001 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 7, 2012) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation