Ex Parte Vorenkamp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2013

11166833 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2013)

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.
11/166,833 06/24/2005 Pieter Vorenkamp 14528.00265 5430
16378 7590 09/30/2013
Broadcom/BHGL
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
SABOURI, MAZDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte P. VORENKAMP, NEIL Y. KIM,
SUMANT RANGANATHAN, and CHUN-YING CHEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JEFFERY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to automatically
controlling power-save operation of a portable communication system
utilizing historical usage information (Spec. 4, ¶[09]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for automatically controlling the power-save
operation of a portable communication system, the method
comprising:

monitoring usage of the portable communication system;
accumulating usage information for the portable communica-
tion system;

determining a power-save operating profile for the
portable communication system based, at least in part, on the
accumulated usage information, said power-save operating
profile comprising information associating a plurality of
performance levels of the portable communication system with
at least time-of-day; and

automatically operating the portable communication
system in accordance with said power-save operating profile,
said automatically operating comprising:

determining, based at least in part on said power-save
operating profile, a quality level of electrical power to be
Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

3
provided to a component of the portable communication
system; and

operating the component of the portable communication
system by providing the component with electrical power
characterized by the determined quality level.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Terunuma US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2003/0005341 Al Jan. 2, 2003
Nguyen US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2003/0226048 Al Dec. 4, 2003
Codilian US 6,892,313 BI May 10, 2005

Claims 1-14, 16-30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Terunuma.
Claims 15 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Terunuma and Codilian.
Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Terunuma and Nguyen.1

II. ISSUE
The main issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding
that Terunuma teaches “automatically operating” a portable communication
system, which comprises “determining, based at least in part on said power-
save operating profile, a quality level of electrical power to be provided to a
component” of the system” (claim 1, emphasis added).

1 The rejection of claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph has
been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 13).
Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

4
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Terunuma
1. Terunuma discloses a power management/control system for
performing the power management control of the information processing
apparatus, and controls operating speeds of the respective devices or an
on/off of a power supply in accordance with a set value for a power saving
control designated by a user (p. 2, ¶ [0025]).
2. The power management/control system has a function of
optimizing the set value for the power saving control, wherein in the
optimization mode, the power management/control system automatically
selects the optimum value, while in a detection method, information is
obtained from the device drivers corresponding to the respective devices or
directly from the devices to grasp a tendency of operating status of each of
the devices (p. 2, ¶ [0026]).
3. The power management/control system predicts the set value
for an optimum power saving control based on the tendency of the past
operating status of the information processing apparatus every
predetermined time period (e.g. every five minutes), and controls the set
value for the power saving control based on the predicted result , That is,
the system predicts the future operating status of the devices, determines the
set value for the power saving control, and controls the operating speed of
the respective devices or the on/off of the power supply based on the
determined set value (p. 2, ¶ [0027]).

Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

5
IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-14, 16-30, 32, and 33
Appellants argue that “there is no indication in Terunuma of
‘determining… a quality level of electrical power to be provided to a
component of the portable communication system’” wherein “such power
supply quality level may be associated with a voltage tolerance range” and
examples of “power supply quality… include power supply variance, ripple
level, noise level and load response level” (App. Br. 8). In particular,
Appellants argue that Terunuma “only mentions turning power to a device
on or off” and “clock frequency control” wherein such of/off control and
clock frequency control do not include “determining a quality level of
electrical power to be provided to a component” (id.). Appellants also
contend that even if “determining an operating speed affects power
quality…, determining an operating speed is clearly not synonymous with
determining a quality level of electrical power to be provided to a
component” (App. Br. 8-9).
However, the Examiner notes that “the phrase ‘quality level of
electrical power’ is undefined within the claim itself, and can therefor[e] be
reasonably interpreted as an amount of power delivered to a component”
(Ans. 10-11). The Examiner further notes that components “would require a
minimal level of quality with respect to variance, ripple, noise and load
response anyway, just by the inherent nature of the components themselves”
(Ans. 11).
The Examiner finds that Terunuma teaches “various set values for
managing the amount of power delivered to various components at various
times in a portable communication system” wherein “the set values can be
Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

6
defined as on/off states of power supply for the components, or as variance
in the operating speed of the components” (id.). The Examiner points out
that “the operating speed directly affects the amount of power being
consumed by those components” and “[e]ither form of power control (on/off
of power supply or variance in operating speed) would affect the amount of
power delivered to that component at that given time” (id.).
We generally agree with the Examiner’s findings.
We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, although Appellants contend that “there is no indication in
Terunuma of ‘determining… a quality level of electrical power …’” wherein
“such power supply quality level may be associated with a voltage tolerance
range” and examples of “power supply quality… include power supply
variance, ripple level, noise level and load response level” (App. Br. 8), such
contentions are not commensurate in scope with the recited language. That
is, claim 1 does not recite any such “voltage tolerance range” or “power
supply variance, ripple level, noise level and load response level”.
Instead, claim 1 merely recites “determining, based at least in part on
said power-save operating profile, a quality level of electrical power to be
provided to a component” of the system”. As the Examiner notes, “the
phrase ‘quality level of electrical power’ is undefined within the claim itself”
(Ans. 10-11). Furthermore, the Specification also does not define the term
but rather, as Appellants concede only sets forth “examples” (App. Br. 8).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that “quality level of
Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

7
electrical power” can be “reasonably interpreted as an amount of power
delivered to a component” (Ans. 10-11).
Terunuma discloses a power management/control system for
performing the power management control of the information processing
apparatus (FF 1), wherein the system has a function of optimizing a set value
for the power saving control, and in the optimization mode, the system
automatically selects the optimum value (FF 2). That is, Terunuma discloses
automatically selecting the optimum value for power management control.
Thus, we find Terunuma discloses automatically operating a portable
communication system.
In Terunuma, the system predicts the set value for an optimum power
saving control based on the tendency of the past operating status of the
information processing apparatus every predetermined time period, and
controls the set value based on the predicted result ( FF 3). That is,
Terunuma discloses creating a profile of the past operating status of the
apparatus for optimum power saving control. Thus, we find Terunuma
discloses a power-save operating profile.
Furthermore, in Terunuma, the system performs the power
management control of the information processing apparatus, and controls
operating speeds of the respective devices or an on/off of a power supply in
accordance with the set value (FF 1). In particular, Terunuma discloses
controlling the operating speeds of the respective devices and/or the power
supply based on the set value, which in turn is based on a power-save
operating profile. That is, Terunuma discloses controlling the operating
speeds of the components and/or controlling the power supply based at least
in part on the power-save operating profile.
Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

8
We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Terunuma’s
“operating speed directly affects the amount of power being consumed by
those components” and “[e]ither form of power control (on/off of power
supply or variance in operating speed) would affect the amount of power
delivered to that component at that given time” (Ans. 11). In particular, we
find that controlling the operating speeds of the respective devices and/or
controlling the power supply comprises determining the amount of power to
be provided to the devices.
Thus, we find Terunuma discloses determining a level of electrical
power to be provided to the devices of the system, based at least in part on
the power-save operating profile. Accordingly, we find no error with the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 17
depending therefrom and not significantly argued separately (App. Br. 9-10,
and 13-14) over Terunuma.
As for dependent claim 7, Appellants similarly argue that “utilization
numbers are not power supply voltage levels” (App. Br. 9). As for
dependent claim 10, Appellants similarly argue that “‘operating speed’ is not
synonymous with ‘power supply voltage variance’” (App. Br. 11). As for
dependent claim 11, Appellants similarly argue that “the different operating
speeds of Terunuma do not read on the different levels of power quality”
(App. Br. 13). As for dependent claim 13, Appellants repeat that “Terunuma
does not teach determining a quality level of electrical power” (id.). As for
dependent claim 32, Appellants similarly argue that “Terunuma fails to teach
the profile providing sub-optimal power” (App. Br. 15).
However, as discussed above, we find no error with the Examiner’s
finding that Terunuma discloses controlling the amount of power supplied to
Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

9
the devices/components for optimization (Ans. 11). Accordingly, we also
find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 10, 11, 13 and 32
over Terunuma.
Appellants do not provide arguments for independent claim 16 and
claims 17-30 and 33 depending therefrom separate from those of claim 1
(App. Br. 14-16), and thus, claim 16 -30 and 33 fall with claim 1 over
Terunuma.
Claims 15, 31, 34 and 35
As for claims 15 and 31, Appellants merely contend that “Codilian
does not make up for the deficiencies of Terunuma discussed above” (App.
Br. 16). Similarly, as for claims 34 and 35 rejected as unpatentable over
Nguyen, Appellants merely contend that “Nguyen does not make up for the
deficiencies of Terunuma discussed above” (App. Br. 17).
However, as discussed above, we find no error with the Examiner’s
reliance on Terunuma . Thus, we also find no error with the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 15 and 31 over Terunuma in further view of Codilian,
and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 and 35 over Terunuma in further
view of Nguyen.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14, 16-30, 32, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and of claims 15, 31, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are affirmed.

Appeal 2011-005346
Application 11/166,833

10
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

Vsh