Ex Parte Papakipos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13289962 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/289,962 11/04/2011
91230 7590 09/01/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Nicholas Papakipos
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.
079894.0384 6877
EXAMINER
DOAN,KIETM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MATTHEW NICHOLAS PAPAKIPOS
and MICHAEL JOHN MCKENZIE TOKSVIG
Appeal2014-009101
Application 13/289,962
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 5-10 and 15-26. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The present invention relates generally a mobile device determining a
notification mode based on the mobile device's user interface mode and
transmitting a message comprising the notification mode. See Abstract.
Appeal2014-009101
Application 13/289,962
Claim 5 is illustrative:
5. A method comprising:
by one or more computing devices, receiving, from a
mobile computing device of a first user, a first message indicating a
notification mode of the mobile device, wherein the notification mode
is based on a user-interface mode of the mobile computing device;
by one or more computing devices, accessing one or
more services with one or more messages to send to the first user;
by one or more computing devices, determining a value
of each of the messages;
and
by one or more computing devices, sending to the mobile
computing device at least one of the messages based on the
notification mode and the values of the messages.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claim 5-7, 15-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 6,072,784, June 6, 2000)
and Forutanpour (US 2001/0119258 Al, May 19, 2011) (Final Act. 5-7; and
R2. Claim 8-10; 18-20; and 24--26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal, Forutanpour, and Harris (US
2008/0254814 Al, Oct. 16, 2008) (Final Act. 7-8).
ANALYSIS
Claims 5-9, 15-19, and 21-25
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of the prior art, particularly Agrawal, teach or suggest a notification mode
that is based on a user-interface mode, as set forth in claim 5?
Appellants contend "the signal from the mobile station to the base in
Agrawal is merely that the mobile station's battery power is below a
threshold value. Nowhere does Agrawal even suggest any user interface.
2
Appeal2014-009101
Application 13/289,962
... the Examiner does not provide any explanation to support this assertion"
(App. Br. 9-10). Appellants further contend that "[t]he Examiner appears to
be focusing the rejection on this statement from the specification about a
notification mode being based on the mobile device's power state, instead of
on the notification mode based on the user-interface" (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner finds, consistent with Appellants' Specification,
Agrawal "teach[ es] the base station receiving [a] signal from mobile station
battery power levels in status messages [sic]" (Ans. 3, citing Spec. i-f 27).
Given that Appellants' Specification discloses that "the notification
mode manager process may determine a notification mode based on the
mobile device's power state" (see Spec. i-f 27), the Examiner is associating a
mobile station's battery power level with a user-interface mode of the
mobile computing device. Consistent with this interpretation, Agrawal
discloses "receiving at the base station a signal from a mobile station that its
battery power is below a threshold value. In response to this, the base
station changes a mobile transmission schedule" (3 :21-26). Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Agrawal discloses a notification mode based
on a user-interface mode of the mobile computing device.
Although Appellants contend that Agrawal does not suggest a user
interface [mode] (see App. Br. 9-10), Appellants' arguments fail to
distinguish a mobile station's battery power level from a user-interface mode
of the mobile computing device. In other words, Appellants fail to define
the argued "user-interface mode" in the Specification and merely gives
examples of the same, i.e., a mode indicating "the user being actively
interacting with the mobile device" (e.g., interacting with one or more
applications running on the mobile device) (see Spec. i-fi-120-21 ); and a
3
Appeal2014-009101
Application 13/289,962
different mode where "the user is not actively interacting with the mobile
device ... if no application running receives user input. .. if the mobile
device's display is in a lower-power or lower-usage state" (see Spec. i-f 22;
see also 23-25). As illustrated supra, Appellants clearly consider the
"power state" of the mobile device to be an indication of a user interface
mode which is used when making a notification decision.
Thus, consistent with Appellants' aforementioned disclosure, the
Examiner has shown that Agrawal illustrates a mode where a mobile station
has its battery power below a threshold value. Thus, we find unavailing
Appellants' contention that Agrawal fails to even suggest any user interface
mode.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5.
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 15 and 21 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants
do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 22, and
23. See App. Br. 9-10. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 6, 7, 15-17, and 21-23.
Claims 10, 20, and 26
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that that the combined
teachings of the prior art, particularly Agrawal, teach or suggest sending at
least one of the messages ... when a size of the queue is greater than a pre-
determined threshold, as set forth in claim 1 O?
Appellants contend that "[t]he scheduling of transmissions in a low-
power time slot which is separate from the schedule transmissions from high
battery power mobile stations in Agrawal cannot properly be considered
4
Appeal2014-009101
Application 13/289,962
sending messages in the queue to the mobile computing device when a size
of the queue is greater than a pre-determined threshold" (App. Br. 11 ).
The Examiner finds "Agrawal clearly teaches 'sending at least one of
the messages in the queue ... when a size of the queue is greater than a pre-
determined threshold'" (Ans. 4, citing Agrawal 7:22-37; 8:33-59). We
disagree with the Examiner.
Contrary to the Examiner's findings, Agrawal merely discloses, at the
cited portions, "the queue buff er 206 contains input and output queues ...
prepare a battery status message in either the queue buffer 206 or in the
output buff er 208, for transmission . . . Queue status information can also be
included in the battery status message" (7:27--47) and "the base station
generate a new transmission schedule for the mobile stations that is based on
the virtual channel priorities and the power levels of the mobile stations"
(8:46--49). The Examiner fails to illustrate where Agrawal teaches or
suggests sending a message in the queue when a size of the queue is greater
than a pre-determined threshold, as required by claim 10. Agrawal merely
sends the battery status message "on a periodic basis, or it can be sent only
when a low battery condition is detected" (7:52-55). Although Agrawal
mentions "queue status information," the Examiner fails to direct our
attention to any discussion about transmissions of messages occurring when
a size of the queue is greater than a pre-determined threshold, as required by
claim 10.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do not sustain the
rejection of claim 10, and claims 20 and 26 for similar reasons.
5
Appeal2014-009101
Application 13/289,962
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 10, 20, and
26.
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 5-9, 15-19,
and 21-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6