Ex Parte Mahini

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2012

10627896 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2012)

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.
10/627,896 07/25/2003 Hassan Mahini 2002-014 4007
54472 7590 08/24/2012
COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON
1400 CRESCENT GREEN
SUITE 300
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
BALAOING, ARIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte HASSAN MAHINI
_____________

Appeal 2010-000732
Application 10/627,896
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 13-19, 22-28, and 35.
1
We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

1
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, and 21 were previously cancelled. Claims 29-34
were previously withdrawn.
Appeal 2010-000732
Application 10/627,896

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer readable medium,
circuit, and device for easily and quickly accessing menus associated with
functions or features of a mobile communication device. Spec. 3. Claim 1
is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of accessing functions in a mobile communication
device comprising:
generating a consolidated event list to consolidate events
according to event type, the consolidated event list comprising
one or more event items, with each event item corresponding to
a different event type;
dynamically updating the consolidated event list by:
adding an event item when a new event occurs and the
consolidated event list does not already have an event item
corresponding to the same event type; and
automatically deleting an event item when a user has
responded to all events corresponding to the event item;
displaying the consolidated event list to a user on a display;
associating a menu item in a hierarchical menu with each
event item in the consolidated event list; and
invoking the associated menu item in said hierarchical menu
responsive to selection of an event item from the consolidated
event list by the user.

REFERENCES
Roth US 6,266,060 B1 July 24, 2001

Kraft US 6,381,474 B1 Apr. 30, 2002

Qu US 2004/0203651 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
(filed Aug. 13, 2002)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 10, 19, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Qu. Ans. 3-6.
Appeal 2010-000732
Application 10/627,896

3
Claims 4-7, 13-16, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Qu and Kraft. Ans. 6-10.
Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Qu, Kraft, and Roth. Ans.
11-12.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding Qu discloses invoking the associated
menu item in said hierarchical menu responsive to selection of an event item
from the consolidated event list by the user?
Did the Examiner err in finding Qu discloses determining a type for
the new event, and adding the event item to the consolidated list if the type
of new event has not been excluded by the user?

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection over Qu
Claim 1 recites “invoking the associated menu item in said
hierarchical menu responsive to selection of an event item from the
consolidated event list by the user.” The Examiner finds that Qu discloses
this limitation since a user can select a menu for a particular event in
response to an annunciator indicating that there is new information related to
the particular event. Ans. 14. Appellant argues that Qu is not disclosing that
which is claimed because Qu’s annunciators do not have any functionality
tied to them; i.e., the annunciators are merely visual indicators. App. Br. 7.
However, as correctly indicated by the Examiner, Appellant’s argument is
not commensurate in scope with the claim. Ans. 13-14. Claim 1 does not
Appeal 2010-000732
Application 10/627,896

4
require selection of the annunciator itself, but rather requires a menu to be
displayed when one of the events from the consolidated event list is selected.
In other words, the claim does not preclude selecting the voice memo menu
screen in order to select the event item (voice memo) from the consolidated
event list (annunciators). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner and sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 10, 19, and 28, Appellant makes the same
arguments with respect to these claims as with claim 1. App. Br. 7-10. As
such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same
reasons as indicated supra.
Regarding claim 35, Appellant argues that Qu does not disclose
“adding [an] event item to the consolidated list if the type of new event has
not been excluded by the user,” as required by the claim, because Qu does
not disclose displaying an annunciator “only if the user has not excluded”
the event. App. Br. 11. First, we note that the claim does not require adding
an event only if the user has not excluded the event. Rather, the claim
requires adding the event if the event has not been excluded by the user.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that a user adding the priority of a
missed call to the annunciator panel is a new event that a user has not
excluded since it has been specifically added by the user him/herself. Ans.
16. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections
Appellant does not make any arguments with respect to claims 4-9,
13-18, and 22-27. Since these claims are dependent upon one of the
independent claims and since we sustained the Examiner’s rejection of the
Appeal 2010-000732
Application 10/627,896

5
independent claims, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for
the same reasons as indicated supra.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding Qu discloses invoking the
associated menu item in said hierarchical menu responsive to selection of an
event item from the consolidated event list by the user.
The Examiner did not err in finding Qu discloses determining a type
for the new event, and adding the event item to the consolidated list if the
type of new event has not been excluded by the user.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-10, 13-19, 22-28, and
35 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

tj