Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2021

2020002663 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2021)

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.
15/685,453 08/24/2017 Kumar Rangarajan 1360F0059C 4467
110828 7590 07/13/2021
Kacvinsky Daisak Bluni PLLC (1360)
2601 Weston Parkway
Suite 103
Cary, NC 27513
EXAMINER
FANG, PAKEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2021 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):
Docketing@kdbfirm.com
kpotts@kdbfirm.com
mfitzsimmons@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KUMAR RANGARAJAN,
GIRIDHAR SREENIVASA MURTHY,
VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAMA KANDULA, and
NAGA VENKATA SURYA MARUTHI LAKSHMAN KAKKIRALA
____________________

Appeal 2020-002663
Application 15/685,453
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant1 appeals 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 AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers
to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a
Appeal 2020-002663
Application 15/685,453

2
DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION
According to appellant, the disclosed invention, entitled “Techniques
for Predictive Power Management of a Mobile Device” (see Spec., Title), is
“directed to techniques for managing discussion sharing between and among
one or more power applications on one or more mobile devices” (Spec. ¶ 4).
“With increased use of mobile devices and increased dependency of the
mobile devices by their users, there is a need for a better management of
battery life on mobile devices” (Spec. ¶ 2). Independent claims 1, 8, and 14
recite commensurate limitations that include receiving predicted information
from a server device (see claims 1, 8, 14). Exemplary independent claim 1
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below:
l. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining device profile information of a mobile device;
transmitting the determined device profile information to
a server device; and
[A] receiving, from the server, predicted information
comprising context sensitive recommendation information
representative of a suggestion [B] to perform one or more of
terminating, configuring, or modifying a specified application of
the mobile device to increase a power reserve of the mobile device,
wherein the context sensitive recommendation information
is determined based at least partially on the device profile
information of the mobile device and [C] based at least partially
on user event information from a user profile on a social
networking system, the user profile from a user account associated
with the mobile device.

Appeal Br. 9, Claims App. (bracketed lettering and emphases added).

patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-002663
Application 15/685,453

3
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lennen et al. (US 2015/0032365 A1; published Jan.
29, 2015) (hereinafter “Lennen”) and Leppänen et al. (US 2013/0143535
A1; published June 6, 2013) (hereinafter, “Leppänen”). Final Act. 2–9.

Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4–8)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–4), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 as
being obvious over the base combination of Lennen and Leppänen, because
the base combination fails to teach or suggest limitations A, B, and C, as
recited in representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2–9) in light
of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 3–8) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–4) that the Examiner has not erred. We have also
reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–9). We disagree with Appellant’s contentions,
which address the teachings of Lennen and Leppänen individually, and fail
to address the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of references as
teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations (see, e.g., limitations A, B,
and C in claim 1 supra).
Appeal 2020-002663
Application 15/685,453

4
With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–3), and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–9) in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. The Examiner finds (see Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3–
9), and we agree, that Lennen and Leppänen teach the limitations A, B, and
C set forth in claim 1.
In general, Appellant’s arguments addressing the individual
shortcomings of Lennen and Leppänen, are conclusory, and do not address
the collective teachings and suggestions of the references. Appellant has not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the base
combination of Lennen and Leppänen. We note that each reference cited by
the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references).
Here, Appellant generally argues that neither Lennen nor Leppänen
individually discloses limitations A, B, and C recited in claim 1 (see Appeal
Br. 4–8; Reply Br. 2–4). However, these conclusory statements are not
persuasive to show the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of
references in teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations. Instead, as to
claim 1, we find the Examiner’s findings (see Final Act. 2–3), reasoning
(id.), and response to Appellant’s arguments (see Ans. 3–9) to be reasonable.
For example, Appellant disagrees with Examiner’s reasoning “the mobile
device of the primary reference could itself be considered a server, and, as
Appeal 2020-002663
Application 15/685,453

5
such, the mobile device receiving suggestions from itself would be
considered ‘receiving from a server…’” (limitation A) (see Appeal Br. 5–6).
However, the Examiner showed a server in both Lennen and Leppänen,
thereby relying a combination of references as teaching or suggestion
limitation A (see Lennen ¶¶ 48, 68, 69; Leppänen ¶ 54; Final Act. 2–3, 9–11;
Ans. 3–5).
In this light, Appellant’s arguments as to claim 1 concerning the
individual shortcomings in the teachings of Lennen and Leppänen are not
persuasive, and are not convincing of the non-obviousness of the claimed
invention set forth in claim 1.
Appellant’s contentions (see Reply Br. 3–4, Appeal Br. 2–5, 7–8) that
the Examiner has yet to provide a clear articulation of why the combination
of Lennen and Leppänen renders the claimed embodiments of the present
application obvious are also not persuasive. For example, the Examiner
determines (see Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 7), and we agree, that it would have
been obvious to modify and combine Lennen’s predicted information for the
future usage with Leppänen’s triggered conditions (e.g., historical analyses,
scheduled events, prediction) in order to disclose limitation C (see Lennen
Figs. 1–5, ¶¶ 48, 68, 69; Leppänen, Figs. 1–7, ¶ 51; Final Act. 2–3, 9–12;
Ans. 3–5, 8–9). Furthermore, the Examiner aptly explains the motivation to
combine the teachings of Lennen with the teachings of Leppänen as being
“to allow the system to better analyze critical system information to help and
to better control the system power, thus, improving efficiency and reduce
power expenditure” (see Final 2–3, 9–12; Ans. 3–5, 8–9).
Appellant’s arguments that neither Leppänen nor the combination
teaches predicting future power usage of a mobile device (see Appeal Br. 7–
Appeal 2020-002663
Application 15/685,453

6
8), are not persuasive insofar as being incommensurate with the scope of the
claimed invention. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (“[The] proffered facts … are not commensurate with the claim scope
and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive
of Examiner error because they are not responsive to the Examiner’s
rejection and are not commensurate in scope to the language of claim 1
(which only requires analyzing “device profile information of the mobile
device” (claim 1), and not predicting future power usage). See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims
cannot be relied upon for patentability).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the first time that the
combination fails to teach “‘transmitting the determined device profile
information to the server’” (Reply Br. 4). This argument was not raised in
the Appeal Brief; nor has Appellant shown good cause for raising these new
arguments in the first instance in the Reply Brief. Accordingly, these new
arguments are forfeited as untimely. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2020) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and
41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be
refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”); In
re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We
interpret the Patent Office to be arguing that Google’s failure to raise its
lexicography arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of
forfeiture.”); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) (arguments not timely presented in the principal Brief will not
be considered absent a showing of good cause explaining why the arguments
could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93
Appeal 2020-002663
Application 15/685,453

7
USPQ2d 1473, 1473–74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a
showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument
newly presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the
principal brief on appeal).
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not adequately shown that the
combination of Lennen and Leppänen fails to teach or suggest limitations A,
B, and C forth in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s contentions
(see Appeal Br. 3–8; Reply Br. 2–4) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as being obvious over the combination of Lennen and Leppänen are
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative claim 1, as well as claims 2–20 grouped
therewith, as being unpatentable over the combination of Lennen and
Leppänen.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not adequately shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–20 over the base combination of Lennen and Leppänen. As a
result, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 are affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Lennen,
Leppänen
1–20

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