Ex Parte AngelhagDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 201310818006 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013) 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. 10/818,006 04/05/2004 Anders Angelhag PS03 0268US1 3261 58342 7590 06/26/2013 WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE 19TH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 EXAMINER CHEN, JUNPENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________________ Ex parte ANDERS ANGELHAG ____________________ Appeal 2012-008325 Application 10/818,006 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-008325 Application 10/818,006 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-20 and 24-29. Claims 21-23 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims on appeal are directed to “communication devices, and more particularly, . . . to mobile telephone handsets, headsets and related communication devices utilizing sensors for facilitating reduced power consumption.” (Spec. 2:2-4). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A communication device comprising: at least one of a display screen for displaying information and/or a backlight for lighting a portion of the communication device; a sensor for providing a command signal indicative of proximity of an object to the communication device; a controller that controls operation of the communication device in response to the command signal; wherein the communication device has a first mode in which the communication device utilizes power and a second mode in which the device utilizes less power than the first mode; and wherein the command signal causes a change between the first mode and the second mode; and an override control operatively coupled to the controller, wherein the override control is adapted to be activated when the Appeal 2012-008325 Application 10/818,006 3 communication device receives an incoming call, the override control being operative to provide an override signal that overrides the command signal that causes change between the first mode and the second mode. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Robinson US Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0233153 A1 Nov. 25, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1-20 and 24-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Robinson or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson. Anticipation Rejection At the outset, we reverse the rejection under §102 for the same reason argued by Appellant: In finally rejecting claim 1, the Examiner acknowledges that Robinson fails to disclose all of the elements of claim 1 arranged as recited in claim 1. (See, e.g., page 4 of the final Office Action, where the Examiner recites that “Robinson does not specifically disclose . . .” when referring to at least one element of independent claim 1.) (App. Br. 9). The Examiner admits “Robinson does not specifically disclose that the instruction from the processor 230 to put the display 120 into the non- illuminated condition would be based on the command signal from the Appeal 2012-008325 Application 10/818,006 4 sensor 125” (see Ans. 6).1 Given the Examiner’s admission, we are constrained by the record to reverse the anticipation rejection over Robinson. Obviousness Rejection under §103 Appellant contends: [T]he rejection of claim 1 should be reversed because Robinson fails to disclose the claimed combination of a sensor for providing a command signal indicative of proximity of an object to the communication device, wherein the command signal causes a change between the first mode and the second mode; and the claimed override control operative to provide an override signal that overrides the command signal that causes change between the first mode and the second mode. (App. Br. 11). The Examiner disagrees: Specifically, Robinson discloses that display 120 would be illuminated by the lighting mechanism 260 as instructed by the processor 230 when a call is received (par [0021]). As a person with ordinary skill in the art would agree, par [0021] of Robinson suggests that before a call is received, the processor 230 or a similar control means would provide an instruction to instruct the display lighting mechanism 265 to put the display 120 in an non-illuminated mode; however, once a call is received, the instruction to maintain the non-illuminated mode is overrode by the received call and the processor 230 (or a similar control means) would control (based on the received call) the display lighting mechanism 265 to illuminate the 1 “[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Knorr- Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc). Appeal 2012-008325 Application 10/818,006 5 display 120 to allow visual notification to the user, figure 2, par [0021]). (Ans. 16, emphasis added). Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding Robinson would have taught or suggested: an override control operatively coupled to the controller, wherein the override control is adapted to be activated when the communication device receives an incoming call, the override control being operative to provide an override signal that overrides the command signal that causes change between the first mode and the second mode[,] within the meaning of representative claim 1?2 We observe Robinson teaches “[i]n Step 320, when the timer has timed out, the various lighting mechanisms and the display are turned off” (para. [0033]). Thus, we find Robinson’s display will generally be turned “off” in a power-saving mode if the communication device is not being used. As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 16), Robinson teaches “[u]pon receipt and processing of a message or a received call, the processor 230 preferably also generates a command signal to the display 120 to generate a visual notification” (para. [0021]). We agree at least this feature would have taught or suggested the disputed override control operatively coupled as claimed, because when the display is turned “ON” the communication device 100 changes from a power saving mode to a non- power saving mode. We 2 Based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1-20 and 24-29 on the basis of claim 1. Appellant essentially restates the same arguments previously advanced regarding claim 1 for independent claims 13 and 25. (App. Br. 15-20). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-008325 Application 10/818,006 6 additionally note Robinson teaches several embodiments that share the common objective of “improv[ing] battery life by reducing overall current drain” (para. [0030]). Moreover, according to one embodiment, Robinson expressly teaches “sensor 230 detects the communication device’s proximity to the device user” (para. [0025]), which we find would have taught or suggested Appellant’s claimed “sensor for providing a command signal indicative of proximity of an object to the communication device.” (Claim 1). Our reviewing court guides that under §103, “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court further guides that the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (citation omitted). This reasoning is applicable here. Therefore, given the various power-saving embodiments and features of Robinson relied on by the Examiner (Ans. 4-14), we are not persuaded Appellant’s claimed invention would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Appellant’s arguments notwithstanding (Reply Br. 1-6), on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. For the Appeal 2012-008325 Application 10/818,006 7 aforementioned reasons, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness, but does not support the Examiner’s finding of anticipation. For essentially the same reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (15-21), as discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s §103 rejection of representative claim 1. Claims 2-20 and 24-29 (also rejected under §103) fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 and 24-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Robinson. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 and 24-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s §102 rejection of claims 1-20 and 24-29. We affirm the Examiner’s §103 rejection of claims 1-20 and 24-29. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). ORDER AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation