Ex Parte Alberth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

12850514 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
12/850,514 08/04/2010 William P. Alberth JR. 1142-221US01 9997
124176 7590 12/22/2016
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A./Motorola
1625 Radio Drive
Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
STITT, ERIK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM P. ALBERTH, JR. and WILLIAM HEDE
Appeal 2015-008112
Application 12/850,514
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-008112
Application 12/850,514
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
6 and 8—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The invention relates to delaying usage of identified content in a
portable electronic device (Spec. 1 5). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a portable
electronic device, content from a server, wherein the content
comprises one or more of an electronic mail communication, a
photograph, a text message communication, a multimedia
message communication, a website, a document, an RSS feed, or
a news feed;
presenting, by the portable electronic device, at least a
portion of the content;
receiving, by the one or more processors, from a user
interface device, an indication that the content is to be presented
again at a later time;
monitoring, by the one or more processors, one or more
device parameters of the portable electronic device; and
responsive to determining, by the one or more processors,
based at least in part on the one or more device parameters, that
the a user of the portable electronic device is likely available,
presenting the content again.
2
Appeal 2015-008112
Application 12/850,514
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Adams US 7,839,723 B2 Nov. 23, 2010
Sugiura US 2001/0051935 A1 Dec. 13,2001
Lau US 2003/0224762 A1 Dec. 4, 2003
Bhargava US 2005/0053201 A1 Mar. 10, 2005
Etelapera US 2007/0112929 A1 May 17, 2007
Singh US 2008/0082651 A1 Apr. 3, 2008
Ponziani US 2009/0237230 A1 Sep. 24, 2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singh, Lau, and Etelapera.
Claims 3, 4, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh, Lau, Etelapera, and Bhargava.
Claims 8—10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh, Lau, Etelapera, and Adams.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh, Lau, Etelapera, and Sugiura.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh, Lau, Etelapera, and Ponziani.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—4 and 8—20
Appellants contend that implementing Etelapera’s “postponement
button that has the snooze-type functionality” in Singh’s task reminder
system would not result in the claim 1 limitations:
3
Appeal 2015-008112
Application 12/850,514
receiving . . . from a user interface device, an indication that the
content is to be presented again at a later time; monitoring . . .
one or more device parameters of the portable electronic device;
and responsive to determining . . . based at least in part on the
one or more device parameters, that the a [sic] user of the
portable electronic device is likely available, presenting the
content again
(App. Br. 8). Appellants also contend the Examiner fails to provide a
sufficient reason for modifying Singh in view of Etelapera (App. Br. 8—9).
We disagree with Appellants.
Singh discloses a reminder system for generating and sending a task
reminder to a user’s mobile communication device based on the user’s
current location with respect to the task location (Singh, 117). Additionally,
Singh teaches “the message module 320 can first determine whether the user
120 is available to receive the reminder” and “the message module 320 can
wait until the user 120 is available” (Singh, || 44, 45).
Etelapera teaches an alarm presented on a mobile device alerting a
user that an appointment or meeting is set to begin (Etelapera, 17). When
the alarm is presented, Etelapera’s user can “press a postponement button
that has the snooze-type functionality” such that “the user will be reminded
again a certain time later” (id.). This postponement feature is useful when
the user is running late for a meeting (see Etelapera, 1 6).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that modifying Singh
in view of Etelapera’s postponement feature “would have resulted in a
method in which, ‘if the user hits the postponement button, then the alarm
will be postponed to a certain time later. ’ The resulting method of Singh in
view of Etelapera would not have included the subject matter of Appellant’s
claim 1” (App. Br. 8). While this argument explains the function of
Etelapera’s postponement feature, it does not specifically explain why
4
Appeal 2015-008112
Application 12/850,514
combining this feature with Singh fails to result in the claimed invention.
We find that combining Etelapera’s postponement feature with Singh’s task
reminder system would have resulted in a system where a user could
postpone Singh’s reminder to be presented to the user at a later time when
the user was deemed to be available. Thus, we find the combination of
Singh and Etelapera meets the limitations of:
receiving . . . from a user interface device, an indication that the
content is to be presented again at a later time; monitoring . . .
one or more device parameters of the portable electronic device;
and responsive to determining . . . based at least in part on the
one or more device parameters, that the a [sic] user of the
portable electronic device is likely available, presenting the
content again.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that:
the Examiner’s asserted reason for modifying the system of
Singh in view of Etelapera is just a statement of what the
Etelapera system does and does not provide any reason, within
the context of the Singh system for modifying Singh in [sic] to
include the “postponement button that has the snooze-type
functionality” from Etelapera
(App. Br. 8). We find the Examiner’s stated reason for combining Etelapera
with Singh—“so that users can respond to reminders and notify other
participants in a meeting with their expected lateness” (Final Act. 4)—would
have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed
invention. That is, Etelapera teaches that upon pressing the postponement
button, “a message will automatically be sent to other meeting participants . .
. saying that the user is running later” (Etelapera, 17). This lateness
notification aspect of Etelapera’s postponement feature provides a reason for
modifying Singh because “if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
5
Appeal 2015-008112
Application 12/850,514
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). That is, one would have understood
the advantage of providing a lateness notification to others involved with a
task that is the subject of Singh’s task reminder in the case that the user was
running late for the task (see Ans. 7).
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 11, 12, and 14 not specifically argued separately. Although
Appellants nominally argue claims 3, 4, 8—10, 13, and 15—20 separately, the
arguments provided are similar to those presented for claim 1 (see App. Br.
12—16). Accordingly, we are also not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 3, 4, 8—10, 13, and 15—20.
Claim 5
Appellants contend the Examiner fails to provide a reason with a
rational underpinning for combining Ponziani with Singh (App. Br. 17—19).
We agree with Appellants.
Ponziani describes a vehicle safety system that provides lane
departure warnings to a driver (Ponziani, Abstract). The type of warning
provided is based on the vehicle’s velocity at the time of lane departure (see
Ponziani, 14). The Examiner states the following reason for combining
Ponziani with Singh: “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to combine the modified Singh with
Ponziani, so that warning reminders can be based on their particular warning
status” (Final Act. 15). We find this rationale insufficient as it does not
explain why one would have combined art from the disparate fields of task
reminders (Singh) and vehicle safety (Ponziani). Specifically, the Examiner
has not provided a reason why Ponziani’s measuring velocity in the context
6
Appeal 2015-008112
Application 12/850,514
of a lane departure warning would have led one to base Singh’s user
availability determination on “the rate of change in device location,” as
recited in claim 5.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 5.
Claim 6
The Examiner relies on Lau for teaching “selecting the content
indicator from the queue when a content length associated with the content
is such that a presentation time of the content will be less than or equal to the
estimated travel time,” as recited in claim 6 (Final Act. 5—6). Appellants
contend the Examiner fails to show the combination of Singh, Lau, and
Etelapera discloses this limitation (App. Br. 11—12). We agree with
Appellants.
Lau teaches an event reminder system in which a user may choose a
first event reminder in the form of an email notification that is based on a
second event’s occurrence (Lau, 124). However, the Examiner has not
shown how this or any other disclosure in Lau teaches “a presentation time
of the content will be less than or equal to the estimated travel time,” as
recited in claim 6.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds “Singh discloses using the
estimated travel time to determine the distance to the destination, and then
selecting the reminder . . . such that the message can be displayed before the
user reaches that destination” (Ans. 9). Singh does disclose that sending a
task reminder can be based on the distance to the task location, and that “the
distance can be represented by the expected travel time between the current
position of the user 120 and the task location” (Singh, 142). However, the
7
Appeal 2015-008112
Application 12/850,514
Examiner has not shown Singh teaches any relationship between the travel
time to a task and the length of time for presenting the task reminder.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 6.
CONCLUSION
Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5 and
6, but did not err in rejecting claims 1—4 and 8—20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5 and 6 are
reversed, and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4 and 8—20 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8