Ex Parte Brown et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201311257731 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TRAVIS BROWN, DAVID MARCH, and LLOYD PALUM ____________________ Appeal 2010-008704 Application 11/257,731 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before: KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIUM DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008704 Application 11/257,731 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-18, 20-23, and 25-27. Claims 2, 9, 19, and 24 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a mobile wireless communications device providing data management and security features and related methods. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A mobile wireless communications device comprising: a wireless transceiver; a series of processing modules; a shared memory connected to said processing modules and to said wireless transceiver; a memory manager module for generating data location indices for data stored in said shared memory; said processing modules cooperating with said shared memory and said memory manager module so that an upstream processing module stores given data in said shared memory and so that a downstream processing module receives the data location index for the stored given data and processes the stored given data based thereon; and a security module for selectively purging data from said shared memory based upon a change in an encryption level of the data. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Reed Galluscio US 5,652,885 US 7,152,231 B1 Jul. 29, 1997 Dec. 19, 2006 Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) Appeal 2010-008704 Application 11/257,731 3 REJECTION1 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-8, 10-18, 20-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (APA), Reed, and Galluscio. Ans. 3. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION2 “[T]he Examiner mischaracterized . . . Appellants’ own specification” in finding that Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) “discloses a security module for selectively purging data from the shared memory based upon a change in an encryption level of the data.” App. Br. 10. ISSUE Whether the combination of AAPA, Reed and Galluscio teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation rendering the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). ANALYSIS Appellants contend that: [T]he Examiner mischaracterized the cited portions of Appellants’ own Specification. The Examiner contended that the alleged AAPA somehow discloses a security module for selectively purging data from the shared memory based upon a change in an encryption level of the data. The Examiner referred to page 7, paragraph 0022, to support this contention. Paragraph 0022 is in the Detailed Description of the Preferred 1 Based on the dependencies of the claims and the dispositive issue, we decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-18, 20-23, and 25-27 on the basis of claim 1. 2 We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues; however, we do not reach these issues, as this contention is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2010-008704 Application 11/257,731 4 Embodiments portion of the Specification and describes preferred embodiments of the present invention . . . . App. Br. 10 (emphasis in original). We agree with Appellants’ argument. We do not find the Examiner’s response at pages 7-9 of the Answer to be persuasive otherwise. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and, for the same reason, the rejection of dependent claims 3-8, 10-18, 20-23, and 25-27. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, claims 3-8, 10-18, 20- 23, and 25-27. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-18, 20-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-18, 20-23, and 25-27 is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation