Ex Parte BrownDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 8, 201411298790 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KENNETH BROWN ____________ Appeal 2012-005634 Application 11/298,790 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–9, 12, 15–17, 20–22, 29, 33, 35, 37, 38 and 47.1 We reverse. 1 Claims 48–51 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but containing allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent format. Ans. 21. Appeal 2012-005634 Application 11/298,790 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to managing content in a portable electronic equipment with wireless communication capability. Spec. 2. Location related content is deleted from the portable electronic equipment upon departure of the equipment from a location. Spec. 2. Claim 1, which is an illustrative independent claim, recites: 1. A method of managing content in a portable electronic equipment with wireless communication capability and having a memory for storing content, comprising: establishing a wireless network interface with a network device associated with a particular location upon positioning of the portable electronic equipment in or near the particular location; receiving content related to the particular location from a source configured to transmit the location related content upon the establishment of the wireless network interface; storing the location related content in the memory; and automatically deleting the location related content upon departure of the portable electronic equipment from the particular location, the departure of the portable electronic equipment being detected by sensing a loss of the wireless network interface by the portable electronic equipment with the network device associated with the particular location. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9, 11–12, 15–16, 20, 22, 29, 33, 37, 38 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vanska et al. (US 2004/0093274 A1; published May 13, 2004; hereinafter “Vanska”).2 Ans. 4–10. 2 Although the introductory sentence to this rejection states that claims 48–51 are also rejected as being anticipated by Vanska, we note that the Examiner Appeal 2012-005634 Application 11/298,790 3 The Examiner rejected claims 17, 21, and 35 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Vanska and Helferich (US 7,039,428 B1; issued May 2, 2006; hereinafter “Helferich”). Ans. 10–12. ISSUES Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12, 29, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is improper. Appeal Br. 7– 13. Appellant’s contentions present us with this dispositive issue3: Does Vanska disclose detection of departure of a portable electronic equipment from a location by sensing a loss of a wireless network interface? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of Appellant’s contentions that the rejections are improper. We have also reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant. Appellant has convinced us that the rejections are in error. Claim 1 recites “the departure of the portable electronic equipment being detected by sensing a loss of the wireless network interface.” The Examiner found that this limitation is disclosed by Vanska. Ans. 5. We disagree. Vanska discloses that a mini-application may be deleted from a mobile device when the device reaches a POS or exits the shop. Vanska did not include any statements about these claims and that the Examiner later states that claims 48–51 contain allowable subject matter. See Ans. 4, 12, 21. 3 We do not reach the additional contentions presented by Appellant because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2012-005634 Application 11/298,790 4 ¶ 34. The mini-application can determine the user has reached the POS by monitoring an RF-ID tag assigned to the POS. Vanska ¶¶ 32, 68. The Examiner found that when the user of the mobile terminal departs the shop, the mobile terminal will lose the RF signal from the service provider shop. Ans. 13. The Examiner then concludes from this finding that Vanska’s system determines the user departs from the service provider shop based upon sensing a loss of the RF signal. Ans. 13. Appellant argues that Vanska does not disclose detection of the departure of the device by loss of a wireless signal, but is rather based upon an exchange between the RFID tag and RFIP tag reader at the POS. See Reply Br. 8–9. We agree with Appellant. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has not established claim 1 is unpatentable. Independent claims 12, 29, and 33 recite substantially similar recitations to that discussed above with reference to claim 1. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has not established these claims are unpatentable. The remaining claims depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 12, 29, and 33. The Examiner did not find that the additional reference relied upon for the rejection of dependent claims 17, 21, and 35 discloses detection of a departure of electronic equipment from a location by sensing a loss of a wireless network interface. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has not established the dependent claims are unpatentable. Appeal 2012-005634 Application 11/298,790 5 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9, 12, 15–17, 20–22, 29, 33, 35, 37, 38 and 47 is reversed. REVERSED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation