Ex Parte Lynch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

11752483 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111752,483 05/23/2007
25943 7590 03/02/2016
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 SW FIFTH A VENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas W. Lynch
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.
114671-156484 3832
EXAMINER
WIENER, ERIC A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
patent@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte THOMAS W. LYNCH 1
Appeal2013-007100
Application 11/752,483
Technology Center 2100
CARLA M. KRIVAK, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-31. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to the management of portable
electronic devices, such as a mobile phone, by, inter alia, monitoring the
usage of the device to obtain "user characteristics."
Claims 1, 10, 19, and 2 5 are independent. Claim 1 is the focus of
1 Appellant identifies Visual Cues, LLC as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2013-007100
Application 11/752,483
Appellant's brief and is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
prior to detecting an event associated with a portable
electronic device, updating, by the portable electronic device, a
stored user profile with one or more user characteristics
determined based on monitored usage of the portable electronic
device;
responsive to detecting the event, obtaining, by the
portable electronic device, the one or more user characteristics
from the stored user profile, wherein the obtained one or more
user characteristics were determined based on monitored usage
of the portable electronic device; and
providing, by the portable electronic device, a notification
to invite interaction with the portable electronic device
responsive to said detected event, the notification provided after
detection of the event in a manner synchronized with at least a
portion of said obtained one or more user characteristics
determined based on monitored usage of the portable electronic
device.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x).
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hansson (US 6,323,775 Bl, issued Nov. 27, 2001) and Barton (US
2006/0248183 Al, published Nov. 2, 2006). Office Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
The Examiner finds that Hansson teaches "user characteristics"
including the (1) "determined battery level threshold" of a mobile device and
(2) the location of charging stations where the mobile device can be charged.
See Ans. 9; Hansson 5:27-54, 8:42-9:5. The Examiner further finds that
2
Appeal2013-007100
Application 11/752,483
these user characteristics may be continuously monitored and updated, and
therefore, are updated prior to detecting the event. Office Act. 3, citing
Hansson 5:51-54, 8:42-9:5.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding ( 1) Hansson' s
characteristics of battery thresholds are "user characteristics" and (2)
Hansson's determination of proximity of charging units is performed "prior
to detecting an event" as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8-10. These
arguments are not persuasive as they do not address the full scope of the
Examiner's findings.
Regarding battery thresholds, Appellant argues the Examiner only
cites to provisions of Hansson discussing the "remaining capacity of the
battery 11," which Appellant asserts is a characteristic of a state of
Hansson's mobile device (10) and not of any user. Id. at 9. However, the
cited provisions of Hansson not only discuss the remaining capacity of the
battery, but also whether the remaining capacity of the battery "falls below a
predetermined level," which the Examiner characterizes as the "determined
battery level threshold." Ans. 9; Hansson 5:41--44. Hansson explains that
the "predetermined level" of the battery threshold can be automatically
adjusted by the mobile device after observing a user's usage patterns.
Hansson, 5:51-54. Appellant does not provide any evidence or argument as
to why the predetermined battery level threshold is not a user characteristic.
We also note that the Examiner's finding is consistent with Appellant's own
Specification, which states user characteristics include data "that may at
least partially identify a user's behavior or habits," such as a user's expected
level of battery capacity. See Spec. i-fi-f 13, 21 ("a change in a user's schedule
may be detected [] such as by [] detecting that a battery charge is low when
3
Appeal2013-007100
Application 11/752,483
user characteristics indicate that a user should have recently charged the
device") (emphasis added).
Appellant further asserts the user's proximity to a charging station is
only determined by the Hansson device "at the time of a low battery event"
and therefore is not a user characteristic that is determined "prior to
detecting an event." App. Br. 10. However, Hansson also teaches that the
location of the charging units used by the user to charge the mobile device is
monitored and stored in the memory (18) of the mobile device before the
low battery event. Hansson 8:66-9:4; Fig. 2A. Hansson explains that when
a low battery event is experienced (such as when the remaining battery
capacity is less than the predetermined threshold value), the mobile device
determines if a charging unit is nearby, including identifying the locations of
known charging units stored in memory. Hansson 8: 10-24; 8:66-9:5; Fig. 5
(step 320); Fig. 6.
Therefore, as a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's findings that Hansson teaches the disputed limitations, which
Appellant has not persuasively rebutted, and we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-9,
for which Appellant does not provide separate arguments for patentability,
as well as claims 10-31, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same
reason as claim 1.
4
Appeal2013-007100
Application 11/752,483
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-31 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).
AFFIRMED
5