Ex Parte Han

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

11648240 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
11/648,240 12/29/2006 Soo-Jin Han 1398-074 4066
66547 7590 12/19/2013
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
HUA, QUAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2013 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 SOO-JIN HAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-007678
Application 11/648,240
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007678
Application 11/648,240

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 3 and 13 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to an event
processing apparatus and method for a mobile communication terminal that
processes events according to security settings (Abstract).

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An event processing apparatus for a mobile
communication terminal, the event processing apparatus
comprising:

a security level determiner for identifying, in response to
reception of an event, a security level of the received
event using registered security settings for individual
persons;

a security level comparator for comparing the identified
security level of the event with a current security level of
the mobile communication terminal;

a controller for controlling, if the security level of the
event is greater than the security level of the mobile
communication terminal, a display operation not to
display the event; and
Appeal 2011-007678
Application 11/648,240

3
a display unit for displaying event information under the
control of the controller,

wherein, if the security level of the mobile
communication terminal is changed to a security level
greater than the security level of the received event, the
controller controls the display unit to display the received
event that was not displayed.

REFERENCES
Kim WO 2005/050857 A1 Nov. 19, 2003
Simpson US 2004/0266399 Al Dec. 30, 2004

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20-22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim (Ans. 3-8).
(2) Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim and Simpson (Ans. 8-9).

We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

Appeal 2011-007678
Application 11/648,240

4
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20-22
Appellant argues the invention is not anticipated by Kim because Kim
discloses a mobile communication terminal into which a user can input a
password to switch to an incoming call information security mode (App. Br.
7). In contrast, Appellant asserts, the present invention includes a
subsequent processing of a call received before changing the security level
of the mobile communication terminal (App. Br. 8). According to
Appellant, Kim does not disclose displaying of a “previously not displayed
received event upon changing the security level of the mobile
communication terminal to a security level greater than the security level of
the received event” (id.).
The issues presented by these arguments are:
Has the Examiner erred in finding Kim discloses:
(a) “identifying, in response to reception of an event, a security
level of the received event using registered security settings for
individual persons” and
(b) “wherein, if the security level of the mobile communication
terminal is changed to a security level greater than the security
level of the received event, the controller controls the display
unit to display the received event that was not displayed”
as recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2011-007678
Application 11/648,240

5
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that Kim describes receiving an event
and in response, identifying a security level of the received event using a
registered security setting for individual persons (Ans. 3-4 and 12-13).
Indeed, Kim discloses when a terminal receives a call, a security execution
unit identifies a security level of the call by comparing the call with
information stored in the security setting information storage unit (Ans. 3-4
and 12-13; Kim, pg. 9, ll. 9-20).
We also find Kim discloses the disputed limitation that “if the security
level of the mobile communication terminal is changed to a security level
greater than the security level of the received event, the controller controls
the display unit to display the received event that was not displayed” as set
forth by the Examiner (Ans. 4, 13, 14, and 19). Specifically, we agree with
the Examiner that Kim describes if a call is received, the terminal displays a
notification and then extracts and displays call reception information if the
user inputs a predetermined unique code (Ans. 8-10). Therefore, in light of
the Examiner’s findings, we agree with the Examiner that Kim discloses “if
the security level of the mobile communication terminal is changed to a
security level greater than the security level of the received event, the
controller controls the display unit to display the received event that was not
displayed.”
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kim
discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and as
commensurately recited in independent claims 12, 21, and 22. Dependent
claims 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20 were not separately argued and therefore
Appeal 2011-007678
Application 11/648,240

6
fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Kim.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 10 and 19
Appellant does not separately argue claims 10 and 19, and therefore,
these claims fall with their respective independent claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kim and Simpson.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Simpson 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk