Ex Parte Jibrin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2009

10830842 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SAMMY JIBRIN
____________

Appeal 2009-2317
Application 10/830,842
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 March 31, 2009
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-2317
Application 10/830,842

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 and 17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to a portable device for determining prayer times
for Muslim religious services and a method of making the device. Claim 1
is illustrative of the device:
Claim 1: A portable device for determining prayer times for
Muslim religious services, the device comprising:
a calendar for producing date information,
a clock for producing present time information,
a GPS detector for producing a longitude coordinate and
a latitude coordinate,
a controller, wherein the controller calculates by applying
astronomical formulas a next prayer time from the date
information, the present time information, the latitude
coordinate, and the longitude coordinate, and
an output for communicating the next prayer time.

On review is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ilkone (“Ilkone for you. for Life”
presentation at Gitex Exhibition, Oct. 18, 2003) in view of Haq (US
2004/0013043 A1, pub. Jan. 22, 2004) and Barkouki (US 4,659,231, issued
Apr. 21, 1987).

2 Claims 2-16, 18, and 19 have been canceled by Examiner’s Amendment
(see Communication of Nov. 3, 2008).
2
Appeal 2009-2317
Application 10/830,842

II. DISPOSITIVE ISSUE
The issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellants and the
Examiner is: Have Appellants established that the Examiner reversibly
erred in finding (1) that Ilkone suggests a controller (claim 1) and a step for
configuring the controller (claim 17) wherein the controller calculates by
applying astronomical formulas “a next prayer time,” and (2) that Haq and
Barkouki provide a suggestion to include a GPS device to supply latitude
and longitude coordinates to Ilkone’s controller for the next prayer time
calculation?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
One of ordinary skill in the art of portable electronic devices would
understand Ilkone to be disclosing a cellular phone with a controller which
automatically calculates a precise Islamic Prayer time for “[m]ore than 5,000
cities” so that the user may be informed of the next prayer time with “next
due prayer highlights.” (Ilkone, p. 14.)
Ilkone does not disclose how the controller calculates the next prayer
time (Ilkone, p. 14).
Haq discloses an Islamic wristwatch which tracks Islamic Prayer
times (Haq, ¶ [0001]). Haq uses a global positioning system (GPS) to
determine latitude and longitude for a given location (Haq, ¶ [0002-03]).
Haq explains that “t]ables are available worldwide for Islamic prayer
timings based on latitude and longitudes.” (Haq, ¶ [0005].) Haq’s
wristwatch includes a chip carrying such tables and the GPS looks up the
timings for the five Islamic prayers based on the table (Haq, ¶ [0005]). The
watch then displays the next prayer time for the location (Figs.; ¶ [0009]).
3
Appeal 2009-2317
Application 10/830,842

Barkouki describes an Islamic prayer calculator/clock device which
can calculate the appropriate times for Islamic prayer on an arbitrary date at
an arbitrary point on the surface of the Earth based upon latitude and
longitude information. Barkouki makes clear that the tables used to
determine prayer times are based upon “calculations for certain important
points on the Earth’s surface of the position of the Sun in the heavens, based
upon tables and equations of the Earth’s rotation and orbital motion around
the Sun,” i.e., the tables are based upon astronomical formulas (Barkouki,
col. 1, ll. 47-52). To use Barkouki’s device, the operator determines the
exact latitude and longitude of the point on the Earth’s surface at which he
or she desires to determine prayer information (usually the location of the
device), inputs the date (usually the current date), and from this information
the “electronic computing means” computes the proper times for Islamic
prayer at the location for that date (Barkouki, col. 3, ll. 6-22).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007). Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the
Supreme Court, the examiner must take account of the “inferences and
creative steps,” or even routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ.
Ball Aerosol And Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d
984, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

4
Appeal 2009-2317
Application 10/830,842

V. ANALYSIS
Appellants do not dispute that the Ilkone phone is a portable device
for determining prayer times for Muslim religious services having a
calendar, a clock, and a controller as found by the Examiner (Ans. 3; Br. 6-
7). Appellants, however, deduce from Ilkone’s statement under “Automatic
Prayer Time” of “more than 5,000 cities” (Ilkone, p. 14) that “it is likely that
local tables specific to the designated cities are stored in a memory of the
device and accessed as specified by a user.” (Br. 6.) Moreover, Appellants
argue that “Ilkone does not even disclose calculation by application of
astronomical formulas, let alone determination of a ‘next prayer time’ based
on these calculations.” (Br. 6-7.)
The Examiner finds that page 14 of Ilkone provides evidence that
Ilkone’s controller calculates a next prayer time (Ans. 3). Moreover, the
Examiner finds, and Barkouki supports the finding, that the conventional
tables used for determining prayer times in specified cites are, in fact, based
on astronomical data (Ans. 8).
Ilkone, Naq, and Barkouki all seek to solve the problem of
determining prayer times depending on location and date. Ilkone does not
provide the specific details of the controller, but Barkouki makes it clear that
an “electronic computing means,” i.e., a controller, was known that could
calculate prayer times at a specific location based upon the input of latitude
and longitude and date. Naq teaches that GPSs were known devices for
automatically obtaining longitude and latitude data. It follows that it would
have been obvious to use the known GPS device for its familiar function of
obtaining longitude and latitude to obtain the predictable result of obtaining
that data for use in the tables suggested by Haq, tables which as evidenced
5
Appeal 2009-2317
Application 10/830,842

by Barkouki, are based upon astronomical formulas. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1739 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Appellants have not established that the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding (1) that Ilkone suggests a controller (claim 1) and a step for
configuring the controller (claim 17) wherein the controller calculates by
applying astronomical formulas “a next prayer time,” and (2) that Haq and
Barkouki provide a suggestion to include a GPS device to supply latitude
and longitude coordinates to Ilkone’s controller for the calculation.

VI. CONCLUSION
Appellants have limited the scope of their arguments to the above
issues and do not further contest the Examiner’s rejection of the claims.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ilkone in view of Haq and Barkouki .

VII. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

VIII. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

cam
6
Appeal 2009-2317
Application 10/830,842

MIRCEA ACHIRILOAIE
485 RAINDANCE ST.
THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360

7