Ex Parte Palin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

12826034 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)

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.
12/826,034 06/29/2010 Arto Palin 042933/388421 2692
10949 7590
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
HUNNINGS, TRAVIS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTO PALIN and JUHA SALOKANNEL
Appeal 2016-005377
Application 12/826,034
Technology Center 2600
Before KEVIN C. TROCK, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-005377
Application 12/826,034
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
detecting an event;
determining a first at least one user interface capability of
one or more connected apparatuses in use by the one or more
connected apparatuses;
determining, by a processor, based on the first at least one
user interface capability in use by the one or more connected
apparatuses, a notification method for notifying of the event,
wherein the notification method comprises a second at least one
interface capability other than the first at least one user interface
capability,
generating an event notification message based on the
determined notification method; and
causing the event notification message to be sent to a
connected apparatus to trigger the connected apparatus to
provide an alert indicative of the event in accordance with the
determined notification method.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin (US 2007/0115108 Al; published May 24, 2007)
and Qiu (US 2008/0120688 Al; published May 22, 2008). (Final Act. 3—6).
Claims 3, 9-11, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin, Qiu, and Modi (US 2009/0031340 Al;
published Jan. 29, 2009). (Final Act. 6—16).
2
Appeal 2016-005377
Application 12/826,034
Claims 4—6 and 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin, Qiu, and Nevalainen (US 2007/0082659
Al; published Apr. 12, 2007). (Final Act. 16—21).
Claims 7, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin, Qiu, and Sizer (US 6,021,432; issued Feb. 1,
2000). (Final Act. 22-28).
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin, Qiu, and Ladouceur (US 2005/0233774 Al;
published Oct. 20, 2005). (Final Act. 28—32).
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin, Qiu, and Shirai (US2011/0112819A1; published
May 12, 2011). (Final Act. 32—33).
ISSUE
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martin and
Qui teaches
determining a first at least one user interface capability of one or
more connected apparatuses in use by the one or more connected
apparatuses; determining, by a processor, based on the first at
least one user interface capability in use by the one or more
connected apparatuses, a notification method for notifying of the
event, wherein the notification method comprises a second at
least one interface capability other than the first at least one user
interface capability,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 18?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Martin and Qui does not teach
3
Appeal 2016-005377
Application 12/826,034
determining a first at least one user interface capability of one or
more connected apparatuses in use by the one or more connected
apparatuses; determining, by a processor, based on the first at
least one user interface capability in use by the one or more
connected apparatuses, a notification method for notifying of the
event, wherein the notification method comprises a second at
least one interface capability other than the first at least one user
interface capability,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 18. (App. Br. 16—
18; Reply Br. 1—3). Specifically, Appellants argue Qui does not teach
“making an affirmative determination of an alert mechanism based on an in-
use user interface.” (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 2). Appellants further argue
Martin “fails to recite selection of an interface capability for sending a
notification based on which interface capabilities are in use.” (App. Br. 17;
Reply Br. 2). That is, Appellants argue neither reference “determin[es] a
particular notification method based on a user interface capability in use.”
(Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 17).
We are persuaded of error. The Examiner finds Martin teaches “an
alert triggering event” that causes a “central monitoring station . . . [to] take
appropriate actions such as notifying emergency personnel when an alarm is
tripped.” (Final Act. 3^4 (citing Martin || 13, 27, 29, 30, 32—33, Fig. 1)).
The Examiner further finds Martin teaches a system providing notifications
during “a specific time of day . . . i.e., [a] time which [a] monitoring receiver
(100) can contact the corresponding receiving device.” (Final Act. 3 (citing
Martin H 13, 71)). The Examiner further finds Qui teaches “call
processor(s) monitoring] usage (capability) of the communication network
by one or more user devices.” (Final Act. 5 (citing Qui 113)). The
Examiner further finds Qui “sends a customer notification request message
(236) to one or more appropriate network elements to notify the affected
4
Appeal 2016-005377
Application 12/826,034
network customer” using “an automated telephone call to the customer’s
contact telephone number” and “[additionally or alternatively ... to [an]
IPTV notification mediation server.” (Final Act. 34—35 (citing Qui 149)).
However, the Examiner has not identified where Martin, Qui, or the
combination teaches a notification that is determined based on the at least
one user interface capability in use. The Examiner asserts “Qui shows
sending [a] notification based on the available system” (Final Act. 34—35
(citing Qui 149); Ans. 35), but Qui teaches only that there are multiple
“[a]dditional[] or alternative^” forms of notification, i.e., automated
telephone calls or IPTV notifications, rather than teaching selecting
notifications based on an in-use interface (see Qui 149). Furthermore, while
the Examiner asserts that the rejection is based on the combination of Martin
and Qui (Ans. 35), the Examiner has not explained how the combination of
Martin, teaching sending notifications during scheduled times (Martin H 13,
71), and Qui, teaching multiple notification types (Qiu 149), determines a
notification method based on a user interface capability that is in use.
Accordingly, based on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 18 and claims
2—8, 10-17, 19, and 20, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 9,
and 18. The additional references, as applied by the Examiner in the
rejections of independent claim 18 and dependent claims 3—8, 10-17, and
19, do not cure the deficiency discussed above. Because we do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejections on this issue, we do not reach the merits of
Appellants’ remaining arguments. (See App. Br. 14—16, 18—25; see also
Reply Br. 3—4).
5
Appeal 2016-005377
Application 12/826,034
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are
reversed.
REVERSED
6