Ex Parte Trap

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

10537689 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/537,689 0912012006
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
05/27/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Flemming Trap
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.
P2650USOO 8438
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FLEMMING TRAP
Appeal2014-005453
Application 10/537,689
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-21, and 23-28.
Claims 4, 6, 14, 16, and 22 have been canceled. See App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005453
Application 10/537,689
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to a mobile communications
terminal having an adjustable availability setting. Spec. 1 :4-5. The
availability setting indicates the extent to which the mobile communications
terminal is available for communicating with other devices connected to a
network. Spec. 4: 16-18. For example, the availability setting may be set to
"available" when the mobile communications terminal is connected to the
network and able to receive communications from the other devices.
Spec. 4:20-21. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A terminal, comprising:
a processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the
at least one memory and the computer program code configured
to, with the processor, cause the terminal to perform at least the
following,
detect commencement of an activity or running of an
application associated with a first setting;
retrieve a second setting associated with a selected
operating profile;
select, without input from a user, a more restrictive setting
based on a comparison of the first setting and the second setting;
adjust an availability setting of the terminal to the more
restrictive setting; and
report of the adjusted availability setting to or via a
network.
2
Appeal2014-005453
Application 10/537,689
Rejection
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-21, and 23-28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Doss et al. (US 2003/0046296
Al ,published Mar. 6, 2003). Final Act. 3-11.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that Doss discloses "select, without
input from a user, a more restrictive setting based on a comparison of the
first setting and the second setting," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not substantively argue the claims separately, but
instead relies on the same arguments for all claims. Appeal Br. 6-9; Reply
Br. 2--4. We select claim 1 as representative. Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 5,
7-13, 15, 17-21, and 23-28 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends "Doss fails to disclose anything that would even
suggest, much less disclose, a selection, without input from a user, of 'a
more restrictive setting based on a comparison of the first setting and the
second setting,' where a 'more restrictive setting' must be interpreted as
defined by Appellants." App. Br. 9. Appellant contends:
[T]he specification is very specific as to the definition of a "more
restrictive setting." In particular, paragraph [0023] of the
Published application (page 6, lines 4 et seq. of the specification,
as filed) recites, "An availability setting can be considered to be
higher if it is more restrictive as to the availability of the mobile
telephone 10 to communications from users connected to the
network N." Thus, in accordance with the disclosure of the
3
Appeal2014-005453
Application 10/537,689
present application, a more ""restrictive" setting is a "higher"
setting and a higher setting in the examples is more "restrictive"
such that offline is higher than online and not being able to
receive communications is higher than being able to receive
communications.
App. Br. 8-9. Appellant further contends:
There is no evidence within Doss that a setting of "away" is
"more restrictive" than a setting of "active" within the system of
Doss, nor is there any evidence in Doss of what a "more
restrictive" setting means in the context of that system.
Moreover, even if a system "could" automatically set to a second,
more restrictive setting, there is no evidence of record as to why
the system of Doss would automatically set to a second, "more
restrictive" setting, as claimed.
Reply Br. 3.
Doss discloses that a user may select a "do not disturb" setting when
the user is using his computer for a customer presentation and can select the
"active" (e.g., available) setting when the presentation is completed. Doss
11 8. The Examiner finds Doss discloses that the "away" setting is more
restrictive than the "active" setting because Doss discloses automatically
changing the availability setting from "active" to "away" when activity has
not been detected for some predetermined amount of time. Ans. 14. The
Examiner's findings are reasonable and consistent with the Specification's
description of the "available" and "away" settings. Spec. 4:20-23
(providing "[i]f the availability setting is 'available' the mobile telephone is
'online' and is 'able to receive communications"' and "[i]f the availability
setting is 'away', 'do not disturb', or 'meeting', then the mobile telephone
10 is 'off line' and is 'unable to receive communications."'). Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
4
Appeal2014-005453
Application 10/537,689
Appellant further contends Doss fails to disclose the disputed
limitation because "[i]n Doss, the user is clearly the one doing the selecting
of his/her IM status" and, therefore, does not disclose that the selection of
the setting is made without input from a user, as required by claim 1. Reply
Br. 3.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Doss discloses that the "away"
setting is automatically set if keyboard and mouse activity is not detected for
some predetermined amount of time. Ans. 14 (citing Doss i-f 8). Doss,
therefore, discloses that the "away" setting is selected without input from a
user. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Appellant further contends Doss fails to disclose the disputed
limitation because Doss does not disclose that the "away" setting is selected
"based on any 'comparison of first and second setting,"' as required by
claim 1. Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, Doss, instead, discloses that
the setting is changed based on a prolonged period of inactivity. Id.
Appellant contends changing the setting based on a prolonged period of
inactivity "is not a comparison of a first setting with a second setting," as
required by claim 1. Id.
We do not find Appellant's contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Doss discloses that typical instant messaging (IM)
settings include "active " "away" "do not disturb " "mobile " and "offline " ' ' ' ' .
Ans. 14 (citing Doss i-f 8). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Doss
discloses that the availability setting is set to "active" at the commencement
of an activity based on detecting keyboard and mouse activity. Ans. 14
(citing Doss i-f 8). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Doss discloses
automatically changing the availability setting from "active" to "away" if
5
Appeal2014-005453
Application 10/537,689
activity has not been detected for some predetermined amount of time. Id.
Doss, therefore, discloses setting the availability setting to "away" when the
availability setting is currently set to "active" and activity has not been
detected for some predetermined amount of time. As such, Doss discloses
comparing a first setting (e.g., the "away" setting") to a current or second
setting (e.g., the "active" setting) and selecting the more restrictive setting
(e.g., the "away" setting) based on the comparison (e.g., based on the second
setting not currently being set to "away") and based on activity not being
detected for a predetermined amount of time. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
1 and claims 2, 3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-21, and 23-28, which fall with claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-21,
and 23-28.
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
6