Ex Parte Hill

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2011

10397725 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte THOMAS CASEY HILL
________________

Appeal 2009-004651
Application 10/397,725
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004651
Application 10/397,725

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-39. Claims 1-6 and 8-39 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ross (US 2004/0137886 A1, published
July 15, 2004). Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Ross in view of Wilcock (US 2002/0013153 A1, published Jan. 31,
2002).
We affirm.
[Appellant’s invention relates to] a mobile station (160,
162, 164, 166) in communication with a remote device (160,
162, 164, 166, 180) and a method of operating the same. The
mobile station receives (410) context classifications associated
with an application (214, 314) from the remote device. When
the mobile station detects (420) an event, the mobile station
determines (430) [sic], its current state and selects a particular
classification based on its current state. The mobile station
provides (450) the particular classification to the remote device
for utilization by the application. The mobile station may also
communicate (540) appropriate classifications to different
applications.
(Abstr.).
Appellant argues claims 1-6 and 8-39 together as a group (see App.
Br. 1).2 Specifically, Appellant argues that Ross does not anticipate the
claims for the following reasons: “[Ross] does not describe any type of
virtual or abstracted classification” (App. Br. 3); “[e]ven if [Ross] suggests
that an [advertisement] is an abstract form of a product or service, the ad is

2 Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
2
Appeal 2009-004651
Application 10/397,725

not a classification of a good or service and, thus, cannot be considered to be
a virtual or abstracted classification” (App. Br. 4); and further, “[Ross] does
not describe or suggest correlating the current state/classification of the
mobile station with a virtual or abstracted classification” (App. Br. 3).
As such, the only issues that Appellant presents for us to decide are:3
(1) Can Ross’s coupons and/or ads be interpreted as constituting context
classifications?
(2) Does Ross disclose correlating the coupons and/or advertisements
with the current state of the mobile station?

ANALYSIS
With respect to both of the issues raised on appeal, we agree with the
Examiner for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as claims 2-6 and
8-39, which have been grouped with claim 1.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejection of claim 7,
Appellant only argues that Wilcock “does not describe or suggest correlating
the current state/classification of the mobile station with a virtual or
abstracted classification” (App. Br. 4). This argument is not persuasive
because the Examiner relied upon Ross for this teaching. The obviousness
rejection is therefore sustained.

3 Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the
Appeal Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Appeal 2009-004651
Application 10/397,725

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-39 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC
600 NORTH US HIGHWAY 45
W2-55BB
LIBERTYVILLE, IL 60048-5343
4