Ex Parte IsbergDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 6, 201411450094 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/450,094 06/09/2006 Peter Claes Isberg 9342-376 7563 54414 7590 01/07/2014 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/07/2014 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 PETER CLAES ISBERG ____________ Appeal 2012-004872 Application 11/450,094 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-004872 Application 11/450,094 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “methods, electronic devices, and computer program products for setting a feature in an electronic device” (Spec. 1:2-3). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An electronic device, comprising: a user characteristic module that is configured to analyze at least one characteristic of a user of the electronic device and to set a feature of the electronic device based on the analysis of the at least one characteristic, the feature being a user programmable feature of the device. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 15-24, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of St. John (US 6,463,415 B2; Oct. 8, 2002). The Examiner rejected claims 9-14 and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of St. John and Kemp (US 2004/0039483 A1, pub. Feb. 26, 2004). ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellant argues the Examiner is incorrect in finding St. John teaches the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 17, and 33. That is, Appellant contends St. John does not teach “setting a programmable feature on a party’s communication device based on an emotion detected in the Appeal 2012-004872 Application 11/450,094 3 party’s voice” or “an analysis of one or more characteristics of a user of the device” (App. Br. 5). Rather, St. John teaches “monitoring a conversation and providing feedback to a third party based on a predetermined emotion” (emphasis omitted) (App. Br. 4-5). The Examiner finds, and we agree, based on a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the operator (computer and network) of St. John is the user, and the operator sets (programs/configures) a feature of forwarding a conversation to the operator when a customer/employee is upset (Ans. 11). With respect to Appellant’s assertions in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2- 3), it is noted these arguments could have been presented in the Principal Brief on Appeal, but were not. In the absence of a showing of good cause, we conclude the regulations set out in 37 C.F.R. § 41, Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, do not require the Board to consider such belated arguments. For a full discussion of this issue, see Ex Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (Informative). Even considering Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding St. John anticipates claims 1, 17 and 33, argued together, and claims 2-8, 15, 16, 18-24, 31, and 32, dependent therefrom and not separately argued. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant provides no substantive arguments regarding claims 9-14 and 25-30, other than to state these claims are patentable for the reasons asserted with respect to claims 1, 17, and 33. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-14 and 25-30. Appeal 2012-004872 Application 11/450,094 4 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 15-24, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9-14 and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation