Ex Parte Chinnapathlolla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

14138728 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017)

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.
14/138,728 12/23/2013 Anjil R. Chinnapathlolla POU920130210US1 5015
46429 7590 06/14/2017
C ANTOR mT RT TRN T T P-TRM POT TOHKFFPSTF EXAMINER
20 Church Street SU, SARAH
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANJIL R. CHINNAPATHLOLLA,
RAJARAM B. KRISHNAMURTHY, and DANIEL ROGERS
Appeal 2017-003981
Application 14/138,728
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 16—20, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-003981
Application 14/138,728
INVENTION
The disclosed invention “relates generally to morphing a portable
device profile, and more specifically, to trigger based portable device
morphing.” Spec. | 1.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, is reproduced below.
1. A computer program product for morphing a portable
device, the computer program product comprising:
a tangible storage medium readable by a processing circuit of the
portable device and storing instructions for execution by the
processing circuit for performing a method comprising:
obtaining an input based on a result of executing an
application among a set of applications of the portable
device;
comparing the input to a plurality of triggers; and
activating a profile of the portable device, based on the
input matching one of the plurality of triggers, the profile
corresponding with the one of the plurality of triggers, the
profile being one of a plurality of profiles, each of the
plurality of profiles defining enabled applications, security
settings for information access by the portable device, and
redundancy settings of the portable device including
frequency of document backup.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1—5, 7, 8, and 16—20, on
the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, as not patentably distinct over
claims 1—7 of co-pending Application No. 14/502,408. Ans. 3^4.
2
Appeal 2017-003981
Application 14/138,728
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 7, 8, and 16—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fan (US 2012/0149350 Al; June 14,
2012) and Raduchel (US 2014/0167686 Al; June 19, 2014). Ans. 5-10.
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Fan, Raduchel, and Hunt (US 2004/0039862 Al; Feb. 26,
2004). Ans. 10-11.
ISSUES
Appellants’ arguments present the following dispositive issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Fan teaches a plurality of
triggered profiles?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Fan
and Raduchel teaches or suggests a profile configuring of
“enabled applications, security settings, and redundancy
settings”?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Fan,
Raduchel, and Hunt teaches “the activating the profile includes
changing a physical appearance of the portable device based on
the enabled applications or the security settings corresponding
with the profile,” as recited in claim 6?
DOUBLE PATENTING
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s provisional double­
patenting rejection, which we summarily sustain.
§ 103 REJECTION
Claims 1—5, 7, 8, and 16—20 stand rejected as obvious over Fan and
Raduchel. Claim 1 is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2015).
3
Appeal 2017-003981
Application 14/138,728
First Issue
The Examiner finds Fan’s paragraphs 3, 13, and 23—24 teach a
plurality of triggered profiles (compare claim 1 ’s “activating a profile of the
portable device, based on the input matching one of the plurality of
triggers”). Ans. 5, emphasis omitted (citing Fan || 13, 23), 12 (citing Fan
113,24).
Appellants argue Fan’s stealth mode is not a “profile” because:
The profile of a portable device is understood to refer to the
specific configuration settings that affect one or more of the look
(e.g., wallpaper, arrangement of applications), sound (e.g., ringer
settings, ringtones), and operation (e.g., passwords, available
appliations) of the device.
App. Br. 6. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner finds
“[t]he claims only require that the profiles define enabled applications,
security settings, and redundancy settings, and are not required to refer to
specific configuration settings that affect the look, sound, and operation of
the device[.]” Ans. 12. We agree. Appellants do not direct us to evidence
to support their interpretation of a “profile,” or to show the Examiner’s
interpretation is unreasonable. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common
experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that
is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
Appellants also argue that even assuming Fan’s stealth mode teaches a
profile, Fan fails to teach a plurality of triggered stealth modes. App. Br. 6.
The argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1
does not require “that a plurality of profiles is triggered by a corresponding
plurality of triggers.” Id. Instead, claim 1 recites activating a profile
4
Appeal 2017-003981
Application 14/138,728
corresponding to one of a plurality of triggers. As found by the Examiner,
“Fan discloses both stealth and normal modes (i.e. plurality of profiles) and
a list of triggers that activate a stealth mode.” Ans. 12 (citing Fan || 3, 24;
see also Final Act. 3^4.
Second Issue
Claim 1 also recites “each of the plurality of profiles defining enabled
applications, security settings for information access by the portable device,
and redundancy settings of the portable device including frequency of
document backup.” Appellants argue Raduchel does not teach this
limitation. App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded by this argument because the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that:
Fan suggests the settings of the profile described in claim 1,
while Raduchel teaches specifically a schedule for performing a
backup process (i.e. frequency of document backup), application,
device and user settings (i.e. application and security settings)
(0049, lines 1—16), where the stealth/modes of Fan, which are
described above of including functionality of backing up data
and configuration settings, would be modified by Raduchel's
profiles of specifically scheduling backups and defining the
applications and security settings.
Ans. 13. Indeed, Fan explicitly discusses backup in the form of recording
when Fan explains that call sessions can be recorded for subsequent
retrieval. Fan 117. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
(App. Br. 3) that the Examiner did not provide any explanation for the
combination.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue:
[Fan’s] retrieval of recordings pertains to access to the device by
law enforcement personal or the user, for example. The
5
Appeal 2017-003981
Application 14/138,728
Examiner does not cite anything in Fan (or Raduchel) to refute
. . . that the stealth mode of Fan does not define security settings
for information access bv the portable device, as [claimed].”
Reply Br. 2 (original emphasis; further emphasis added). Appellants argue
that operating the device “is erroneously asserted as defining access by the
device.” Id. We disagree and see no error in the Examiner’s application of
Fan’s paragraph 17 as teaching this element. We agree with the Examiner
that Fan’s teaching of the device initiating emergency calls based on a
configuration teaches “information access by the portable device” as recited
in claim 1. Fan 117.
Appellants also argue: “There is no logical connection between
stealthy emergency communication (as in Fan) and content download via a
network-enabled power charging device (as in Raduchel).” App. Br. 8. In
addition to being conclusory, the argument mischaracterizes the
Fan-Raduchel combination as only implementing stealth modes for
emergency communication. Fan expressly contemplates stealth modes for
non-emergency circumstances; e.g., periodic monitoring (Fan 139) and
monitoring of a child or security guard while deviating from an itinerary
{id. at 1114, 19, 25).
Third Issue
Claim 6 stands rejected as obvious over the Fan-Raduchel
combination as modified in view of Hunt. Claim 6 adds: “the activating the
profile includes changing a physical appearance of the portable device based
on the enabled applications or the security settings corresponding with the
profile.” Appellants argue “any modification that results in the stealth mode
6
Appeal 2017-003981
Application 14/138,728
changing a physical appearance of the device of Fan would be counter to the
intended purpose of Fan.” App. Br. 9.
The Examiner responds that Fan’s stealth modes permit observable
changes to a device if responsive to the user, for example to permit a phone
call during stealth recording. Ans. 15; see also Final Act. 4—5. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings because Fan’s stealth mode allows for display
changes prompted by various operations, such as a user input or incoming
call. Fan 145. We agree Fan teaches that even when in stealth mode, the
device “will continue to allow phone calls or messages to be sent and/or
incoming calls or messages to be received if no token is part of the
signaling.” Id. Thus, Fan contemplates changing the appearance of the
display. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br.
9) that any modification resulting in Fan’s stealth mode changing a physical
appearance of the device would be counter to its intended purpose.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6.
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, the remaining
pending claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
7
Appeal 2017-003981
Application 14/138,728
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—8 and 16—20.
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
8