Ex Parte Cole

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11537509 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

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.
11/537,509 09/29/2006 Terry L. Cole 2000.143500/TT6094 1525
92585 7590 03/25/2013
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C.
10333 Richmond, Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
COSME, NATASHA W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2013 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 TERRY L. COLE
____________

Appeal 2010-010655
Application 11/537,509
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010655
Application 11/537,509

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 12-19, 21, 24, and 25, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method for establishing connectivity for a mobile device
including a plurality of communication interfaces, comprising:
monitoring a power state of the mobile device;
selecting a first one of the communication interfaces based on the
power state; and
establishing predetermined intermittent connectivity based on the
power state to a remote network using the first communication interface,
wherein the intermittent connectivity includes periods of connectivity using
the first communication interface and periods of no connectivity with any of
the plurality of communication interfaces.

Prior Art
Flynn US 5,870,685 Feb. 9, 1999
Khullar US 02/03733 A1 Jan. 10, 2002

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-19, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Khullar and Flynn.

Appeal 2010-010655
Application 11/537,509

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “establishing predetermined intermittent connectivity
based on the power state to a remote network using the first communication
interface.” Appellant contends that column 12 of Flynn teaches that the
mobile device disables transmit operation but retains receive capabilities.
According to Appellant, the mobile device of Flynn always remains
connected via the receive link, but if the battery capacity continues to fall, all
communication is disabled. Appellant concludes that termination of
connectivity does not teach intermittent connectivity. App. Br. 9-10.
Appellant’s contention is inconsistent with the teaching of Flynn at
column 12, lines 34-37. Appellant’s contention is also inconsistent with
column 12, lines 43-47 of Flynn, which references Figures 8A and 8B.
Figures 8A and 8B show disabling remaining operations other than charging
(at box 478), charging the battery (at box 468), then monitoring for a low
battery alarm condition (starting at box 418 or box 428) after charging has
been completed.
Appellant has not provided a definition of “establishing predetermined
intermittent connectivity based on the power state to a remote network using
the first communication interface, wherein the intermittent connectivity
includes periods of connectivity using the first communication interface and
periods of no connectivity with any of the plurality of communication
interfaces” that excludes enabling transmit and receive operations with a
base station, disabling transmit and receive operations when a dead battery
alarm condition is detected, charging the battery, then enabling transmit and
receive operations after the battery is charged as taught by Flynn.

Appeal 2010-010655
Application 11/537,509

4
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 12-19, 21, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khullar and Flynn is 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

babc