Ex Parte Imai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2016

12777380 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121777,380 05/11/2010
124845 7590 03/29/2016
Russell Ng PLLC (LENOVO)
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takumi Imai
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
JP920090017-US-NP 4236
EXAMINER
ADNAN, MUHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2016 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):
s tephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte T AKUMI IMAI
Appeal2014-008354
Application 12/777,380
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b),
and we affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
[a] method for displaying battery remaining time . .
Initially, battery voltage, battery current and remaining battery
capacity are initially detected. Then, a first battery remaining
time at intervals of a first cycle period is determined based on the
battery voltage, the battery current, and the remaining battery
capacity. The first battery remaining time is updated and
displayed on a display unit accordingly. In response to a power
consumption change event ... , a second battery remaining time
Appeal2014-008354
Application 12/777,380
at intervals of a second cycle period shorter than the first cycle
period is determined based on the battery voltage, the battery
current, and the remaining battery capacity. The second battery
remaining time is then updated and displayed on the display unit
accordingly.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows, with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
detecting battery voltage, battery current and remaining
battery capacity of a battery;
determining a first battery remaining time at intervals of
a first cycle period based on said battery voltage, said battery
current and said remaining battery capacity;
updating and displaying said first battery remaining time
on a display unit;
in response to an occurrence of a power consumption
change event, determining a second battery remaining time at
intervals of a second cycle period based on said battery voltage,
said battery current and said remaining battery capacity,
wherein said second cycle period is shorter than said first cycle
period; and
updating and displaying said second battery remaining
time on said display unit.
2
Appeal2014-008354
Application 12/777,380
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Akiyama (EP 0593198; Apr. 20, 1994) and
Schwendinger (US 2006/0017582 Al; Jan. 26, 2006). Final Act. 2--4. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Akiyama, Schwendinger, and Hong (US
2009/0312072; filed Apr. 30, 2009). Final Act. 4--6.
The Examiner rejected claims 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Akiyama, Schwendinger, and Taylor (US 4,333, 149;
June 1, 1982). Final Act. 6-7.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON AKIYAMA AND
SCHWENDINGER
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12
The Examiner finds that Akiyama discloses the recited elements of
claim 1, except for "determining a second battery remaining time at intervals
of a second cycle period, wherein said second cycle period is shorter than
said first cycle period." Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner, however, relies on
Schwendinger for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 3.
Appellant, on the other hand, contends that Akiyama fails to teach
"determining a first battery remaining time at intervals of a first cycle based
on said battery voltage, said battery current and said remaining battery
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to ( 1) the Appeal Brief filed
February 10, 2014 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed
July 14, 2014 ("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 25, 2014 ("Reply
Br.").
3
Appeal2014-008354
Application 12/777,380
capacity." App. Br. 6. Additionally, Appellant argues that neither Akiyama
nor Schwendinger teaches determining a second battery remaining time at a
shorter cycle period. App. Br. 6-7.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Akiyama and Schwendinger teach the determining a first battery
remaining time and determining a second battery remaining time limitations
as required by claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, and 12 as unpatentable over
Akiyama and Schwendinger.
Appellant asserts that Akiyama fails to teach the step of determining a
first battery remaining time based on said battery voltage, said battery
current and said remaining battery capacity. App. Br. 6. According to
Appellant, Akiyama "actually teaches that battery remaining time
calculating means 10 finally calculates the remaining telephone call possible
period of time after calculating the remaining quality of electric charge in
the battery" and, therefore, does not calculate battery remaining time based
on battery voltage, battery current, and remaining battery capacity. App
Br. 6. Appellant further explains that Akiyama fails to use "remaining
battery capacity information" and that Akiyama calculates "remaining
quantity of electric charge," not first battery remaining time. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Akiyama teaches:
4
Appeal2014-008354
Application 12/777,380
The battery remaining time calculating means 10 receives the
information which has been supplied from both the consumed
current calculating means 9 and the AID converter 7 and then
calculates the remaining quantity of electric charge in the battery
on the basis of the terminal voltage of the battery and finally
calculates the remaining telephone call possible period of time
on the basis of both that calculation result and the consumed
current.
Akiyama, col. 4, 11. 10-18 (emphasis added). In other words, as the
Examiner finds, Akiyama's battery remaining time calculating means uses a
two-step process to calculate the telephone call remaining time (i.e., the
battery remaining time). This process includes using (1) information from
the consumed current calculating means (i.e., battery current information),
(2) information from the AID converter (i.e., battery voltage information),
and (3) remaining quantity of electric charge (i.e., remaining battery capacity
information). See, e.g., Ans. 6.
As the Examiner explains,
Akiyama explicitly teaches that battery remaining charge can be
determined by the disclosed system wherein [the] remaining
period of operation of the appliance can be calculated based on
this determination and displayed (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 52-58 &
Col. 3, lines 1-9; see also Col. 4, lines 10-28).
Ans. 6 (italics added). In other words, a skilled artisan would have
understood Akiyama's remaining period of operation to be the remaining
battery time. Ans. 6. The Examiner's finding is also supported by the
Specification disclosure that it is the "battery remaining time calculating
means" that performs the calculation. See Spec. col. 4, 11. 10-18. As such,
we agree with the Examiner that Akiyama teaches the recited "determining a
first battery remaining time at intervals of a first cycle period based on said
battery voltage, said battery current and said remaining battery capacity."
5
Appeal2014-008354
Application 12/777,380
Additionally, Appellant argues that neither Akiyama nor
Schwendinger discloses determining a second battery remaining time at a
shorter cycle period. App. Br. 6-7. More specifically, Appellant maintains
that the Examiner's reliance on "a matter of normal operating conditions"
for the claimed power consumption change event conflicts with claim 4' s
recitation that the second cycle period is for a predetermined time and will
revert back to the first cycle period. App. Br. 7. Further, according to
Appellant, Schwendinger' s replacement of a battery is irrelevant because the
claims refer to reverting back to the increased interval time for the same
battery. App. Br. 7.
Appellant's argument lacks merit. As the Examiner explains,
Schwendinger teaches resuming normal operation, i.e., reverting back to an
increased interval time, upon replacement or recharging of the battery.
Ans. 7 (citing Schwendinger i-f7 l ). "Recharging" would have at least
suggested to a skilled artisan that the increased interval would occur upon
recharging the same battery.
As such, we are not persuaded that Schwendinger and Akiyama fail to
teach this limitation. As the Examiner identifies, Schwendinger teaches
determining a second battery remaining time in response to power
consumption change events, such as detecting a low battery condition, and
checking the battery condition in shorter time intervals. Ans. 7. The
Examiner also explains that power consumption events are known in modem
day devices and that Akiyama, for example, teaches updating and displaying
battery remaining time based on a change in a power consumption event,
i.e., whether the displays screen is on or off or when a call is in progress.
Ans. 7. We are not persuaded of error in these findings.
6
Appeal2014-008354
Application 12/777,380
Appellant also challenges Akiyama's teaching of displaying said first
battery remaining time on a display unit. See Reply Br. 2. This argument,
however, was raised for the first time in the Reply Brief and is therefore
waived as untimely. Compare Reply Br. 2 with App. Br. 6-7. See also Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[The
reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been
made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but
were not."). In addition, we find the Examiner's position with respect to this
limitation has not shifted between the Final Action and the Answer.
Compare Final Act. 2 with Ans. 6.
Moreover, this argument is unsupported. Notably, Akiyama expressly
states that "the user can become aware of how long the operation of the
appliance can be continued to be performed on the basis of the display of the
remaining time of the battery ... . " Akiyama, col. 3, 11. 3-6 (emphasis
added). We also note that merely depicting a value on a display, without
more, would not distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art
combination. See, e.g., MPEP § 2111.05, 9th ed., Mar. 2014 ("[W]here the
claim as a whole is directed conveying a message or meaning to a human
reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-
readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no
functional relationship exists.").
With respect to claim 2, Appellant notes that claim 2 requires that the
"power consumption event include[] at least one of a change in power-
saving settings, ON/OFF control of a battery-life extending function, and a
change in luminance of said display unit." App. Br. 7; Reply Br 2.
Appellant contends these events are "different from the low battery
7
Appeal2014-008354
Application 12/777,380
conditions disclosed by Schwendinger." Reply Br. 3. Appellant's
arguments, however, are unavailing because they fail to address the
additionally relied upon teachings of Akiyama. For example, the Examiner
finds Akiyama's mobile device may display battery remaining time based on
whether the display screen is on or off, i.e., a change of luminance of the
display unit. See, e.g., Ans. 7.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claims 1 and 2, as well as claims 4---6, 8-10, and 12, not argued with
particularity, are unpatentable over Akiyama and Schwendinger.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 13-18
Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the
remaining obviousness rejections. See App. Br. 5 (indicating that Appellant
is only appealing the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10 and 12). Therefore,
we summarily affirm the remaining obviousness rejections of claims 3, 7,
11, and 13-18.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-18 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18.
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