Ex Parte Woods et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2013

11470060 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 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.
11/470,060 09/05/2006 Richard Woods SchwartzCell 7468
2655 7590 03/11/2013
DAVID PRESSMAN, ESQ.
1070 GREEN STREET
# 1402
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941335418
EXAMINER
KHAN, SUHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2013 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 RICHARD WOODS, NEHEMIA SCHWARTZ,
and NIRA SCHWARTZ
_____________

Appeal 2013-004571
Application 11/470,060
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and BARBARA A.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-004571
Application 11/470,060

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 105 through 122.

We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a mobile communication system where
the position and speed of the mobile devices are monitored and the devices
exceeding a speed are inhibited from receiving calls. See pages 3, 4, 6, and
7 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 105 is representative of the invention
and reproduced below:
105. A method for controlling a wireless mobile phone,
comprising:
(a) providing a wireless mobile phone with an on-board
memory,
(b) said wireless mobile phone including a transmitter and
a receiver for communicating with a base station,
(c) providing said wireless mobile phone with a sensing
unit for continuously and repeatedly sensing the space
coordinates of said wireless communication mobile phone,
(d) determining the times at which each sensing of said
space coordinates was made,
(e) storing the resultant space coordinates and
corresponding respective time values in said onboard memory,
(f) said on-board memory being capable of storing said
resultant space coordinates and corresponding respective time
values,
(g) sending said space coordinates and respective time
values to a remote location selected from the group consisting of
said base station and another wireless mobile phone,
Appeal 2013-004571
Application 11/470,060

3

(h) providing said wireless mobile phone or said base
station with an arithmetic logic unit for continually calculating
said wireless mobile phone’s speed of movement in accordance
with said space coordinates and said time values and
(i) storing said speed of movement in said on-board
memory or said base station,
(j) providing said wireless mobile phone with an interrupt
unit for receiving an interrupt signal, and
(k) providing an interrupt signal to said wireless mobile
phone in response to said mobile phone’s speed of movement
exceeding a predetermined value and becoming a hazardous
form of communication that endangers life,
(l) said interrupt unit in said wireless mobile phone
arranged to receive said interrupt signal and, in response thereto,
cause a hang-up signal to be cross transmitted and received for
forcing hang-up of said phone and also for continually updating
information about said hang-up of said phone to said remote
location,
(m) whereby said base station or said other wireless
mobile phone will be updated with information that the user of
said wireless mobile phone is speeding and said phone has been
forced into said hang-up or on-hook state.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 105 through 122 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pfleging (U.S. 2006/0099940) and Sheha
(U.S. 2005/0073443). Final Rejection 6-241.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Rejection dated April 3,
2012; Examiner’s Answer dated December 27, 2012; Appeal Brief dated
August 23, 2012; and Reply Brief dated February 14, 2013.
Appeal 2013-004571
Application 11/470,060

4

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 7 through 29 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 105, 112, and 116 is in error.
These arguments present us with several issues, the dispositive issue is: did
the Examiner err in finding the combination of Pfleging and Sheha teaches
when an interrupt signal indicating exceeding a speed value is determined,
continuously transmitting information to a remote location?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Pfleging and Sheha teaches when an interrupt
signal indicating exceeding a speed value is determined, continuously
transmitting information to a remote location. Each of independent claims
105, 112, and 119 recites a limitation directed providing an interrupt signal
when the mobile phone’s speed exceeds a predetermined threshold and in
response to this interrupt signal causing a hang up signal to be cross
transmitted and continually updating the hang up of the phone to a remote
location. Appellants argue on pages 25 and 27 of the Brief that this feature
is not taught by the combination of the references. The Examiner in
response to Appellants’ argument states that the claim does not recite a
limitation directed to disabling calls while allowing data communication.
Answer 20. Further, the Examiner finds that Pfleging teaches that when the
device is in a sleep mode (which is a power on state) due to velocity
restriction, indication is passed to another device. Answer 20. While the
Appeal 2013-004571
Application 11/470,060

5

Examiner is correct that the claims do not directly recite data
communication, they do recite continually cross transmitting the hang up of
the phone to said remote location, which means that there is a continuous
transmission of status. As argued by Appellants, para. 8 of Pfleging states
that there is no transmission when the mobile device is subject to velocity
restriction, and the Examiner has not cited any evidence to show that the
mobile device continuously transmits a hang up command when in the
velocity restricted sleep mode. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 105 through 122 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the combination of Pfleging and Sheha.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 105 through 122 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc