Facebook, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 13, 20212020002663 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation