Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

11833020 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111833,020 08/02/2007
66547 7590 09/30/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jung Mi LEE
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.
1398-120 (YPF
200611-0034
EXAMINER
7134
MIAH,LITON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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 JUNG MI LEE, BYEONG CHEOL HWANG,
JIN YOUNG JEON, YOUNG MI KIM, and
MIN JEONG KWON1
Appeal2014-009511
Application 11/833,020
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-10, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claim 7 is canceled. App. Br. 11 (Claims
App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009511
Application 11/833,020
Invention
Appellants disclose a "time-dependent information management
system and method for a mobile phone that enable[ s] the management of
time-related information in consideration of a change of time zone."
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A time-dependent information management method for a
mobile phone, comprising:
acquiring a first time zone of an area where the mobile
phone is located;
registering an event planned to occur at a first local time
based on the first time zone;
registering a reference time calculated from the first
local time with the registered event;
if the mobile phone enters into a second time zone,
selecting the event in accordance with a key input; and
setting the event to occur at a second local time
calculated from the reference time.
References and Re} ection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nagashima (US 2002/0177442 Al; published
Nov. 28, 2002), Fu et al. (US 2002/0038234 Al; published Mar. 28, 2002)
("Fu"), and Kumar (US 6,950,662 B2; issued Sept. 27, 2005). Final Act. 3-
9.
2
Appeal2014-009511
Application 11/833,020
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of N agashima, Fu,
and Kumar teaches or suggests: (1) "registering a reference time calculated
from the first local time with the registered event" and (2) "setting the event
to occur at a second local time calculated from the reference time," as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nagashima's calculation
of registered schedule date and time 611' using schedule date and time 611
teaches or suggests registering a reference time calculated from the first
local time with the registered event. Ans. 3 (citing Nagashima Fig. 6, iii! 25,
57); see also Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that Fu teaches or
suggests "wherein when [a] user travel[ s] to [a] new time zone, the Sydney
event is selected for update with [the] current local time." Final Act. 3
(citing Fu iii! 8, 91 ).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because in N agashima
"[ e ]ither the original schedule time is registered when the current set time is
equal to the current reference time, or a correct[ ed] time is registered when
the current reference time is different from the current set time." App. Br. 6.
Appellants argue that "[a ]t no time is the reference time registered in
Nagashima." Id. at 6-7. However, Appellants do not persuasively
distinguish the claimed reference time from Nagashima's registered
schedule date and time 611 ', which Appellants acknowledge is registered
when the current reference time is different from the current set time. Id. at
6; Reply Br. 4.
3
Appeal2014-009511
Application 11/833,020
Appellants contend that "Nagashima arguably teaches away from the
[claimed invention] by stating 'the extended information is neglected
because the registered schedule date and time ... 611' [is] corrected." App.
Br. 7 (citing Nagashima iJ 57). However, claim 1, which calculates the
reference time to register, does not preclude the registered reference time
from representing a corrected time. Therefore, Appellants' arguments do
not show how Nagashima's teachings criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage from registration of a reference time in the manner claimed. See
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
N agashima, Fu, and Kumar teaches or suggests "registering a reference time
calculated from the first local time with the registered event," as recited in
claim 1.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred because "using the
Examiner's own logic, i.e., assuming arguendo that the corrected time in
Nagashima corresponds to the registered reference time that is calculated
from the first local time with the registered event, then Nagashima fails to
teach or suggest setting the event to occur at a second local time calculated
from the reference time." Reply Br. 2.
We first note that the disputed recitation related to setting the event to
occur at a second local time is directed, at least with respect to claim 1, to a
conditional recitation that need not be performed in the broadest reasonable
scenario (i.e., if the mobile phone does not enter into a second time zone).
See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, *4 (BPAI 2011) (nonprecedential)
(citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004)).
4
Appeal2014-009511
Application 11/833,020
We further note that the Examiner's unrebutted findings regarding Fu
show that Fu teaches or suggest the claimed calculation and use of a second
local time in the manner claimed. In particular, the Examiner correctly finds
that when a user travels to a new time zone, an event created for the old time
zone (e.g., Fu's "Sydney" event) is selected for update with the new local
time. Final Act. 3 (citing Fu ,-i,-i 8, 91 ). This teaching plainly relates to be
selecting an event in the manner claimed and setting the selected event to
occur at a second local time (the time in the new time zone) calculated from
the reference time (the time in the old time zone). Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings as they relate to Fu, but rather
merely contend that Fu does not cure the alleged deficiencies of N agashima.
App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Nagashima, Fu, and Kumar teaches or suggests "setting the event to occur at
a second local time calculated from the reference time," as recited in claim
1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2-6 and 8-10, which Appellants do not argue
separately with persuasive specificity. App. Br. 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 8-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5