Ex Parte ImaiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 201612777380 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121777,380 05/11/2010 124845 7590 03/29/2016 Russell Ng PLLC (LENOVO) 8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100 Austin, TX 78757 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Takumi Imai 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. JP920090017-US-NP 4236 EXAMINER ADNAN, MUHAMMAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2016 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): s tephanie@russellnglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte T AKUMI IMAI Appeal2014-008354 Application 12/777,380 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b), and we affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to [a] method for displaying battery remaining time . . Initially, battery voltage, battery current and remaining battery capacity are initially detected. Then, a first battery remaining time at intervals of a first cycle period is determined based on the battery voltage, the battery current, and the remaining battery capacity. The first battery remaining time is updated and displayed on a display unit accordingly. In response to a power consumption change event ... , a second battery remaining time Appeal2014-008354 Application 12/777,380 at intervals of a second cycle period shorter than the first cycle period is determined based on the battery voltage, the battery current, and the remaining battery capacity. The second battery remaining time is then updated and displayed on the display unit accordingly. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows, with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising: detecting battery voltage, battery current and remaining battery capacity of a battery; determining a first battery remaining time at intervals of a first cycle period based on said battery voltage, said battery current and said remaining battery capacity; updating and displaying said first battery remaining time on a display unit; in response to an occurrence of a power consumption change event, determining a second battery remaining time at intervals of a second cycle period based on said battery voltage, said battery current and said remaining battery capacity, wherein said second cycle period is shorter than said first cycle period; and updating and displaying said second battery remaining time on said display unit. 2 Appeal2014-008354 Application 12/777,380 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Akiyama (EP 0593198; Apr. 20, 1994) and Schwendinger (US 2006/0017582 Al; Jan. 26, 2006). Final Act. 2--4. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Akiyama, Schwendinger, and Hong (US 2009/0312072; filed Apr. 30, 2009). Final Act. 4--6. The Examiner rejected claims 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Akiyama, Schwendinger, and Taylor (US 4,333, 149; June 1, 1982). Final Act. 6-7. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON AKIYAMA AND SCHWENDINGER Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12 The Examiner finds that Akiyama discloses the recited elements of claim 1, except for "determining a second battery remaining time at intervals of a second cycle period, wherein said second cycle period is shorter than said first cycle period." Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner, however, relies on Schwendinger for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 3. Appellant, on the other hand, contends that Akiyama fails to teach "determining a first battery remaining time at intervals of a first cycle based on said battery voltage, said battery current and said remaining battery 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to ( 1) the Appeal Brief filed February 10, 2014 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed July 14, 2014 ("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 25, 2014 ("Reply Br."). 3 Appeal2014-008354 Application 12/777,380 capacity." App. Br. 6. Additionally, Appellant argues that neither Akiyama nor Schwendinger teaches determining a second battery remaining time at a shorter cycle period. App. Br. 6-7. ISSUE Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Akiyama and Schwendinger teach the determining a first battery remaining time and determining a second battery remaining time limitations as required by claim 1? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, and 12 as unpatentable over Akiyama and Schwendinger. Appellant asserts that Akiyama fails to teach the step of determining a first battery remaining time based on said battery voltage, said battery current and said remaining battery capacity. App. Br. 6. According to Appellant, Akiyama "actually teaches that battery remaining time calculating means 10 finally calculates the remaining telephone call possible period of time after calculating the remaining quality of electric charge in the battery" and, therefore, does not calculate battery remaining time based on battery voltage, battery current, and remaining battery capacity. App Br. 6. Appellant further explains that Akiyama fails to use "remaining battery capacity information" and that Akiyama calculates "remaining quantity of electric charge," not first battery remaining time. Reply Br. 2. Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Akiyama teaches: 4 Appeal2014-008354 Application 12/777,380 The battery remaining time calculating means 10 receives the information which has been supplied from both the consumed current calculating means 9 and the AID converter 7 and then calculates the remaining quantity of electric charge in the battery on the basis of the terminal voltage of the battery and finally calculates the remaining telephone call possible period of time on the basis of both that calculation result and the consumed current. Akiyama, col. 4, 11. 10-18 (emphasis added). In other words, as the Examiner finds, Akiyama's battery remaining time calculating means uses a two-step process to calculate the telephone call remaining time (i.e., the battery remaining time). This process includes using (1) information from the consumed current calculating means (i.e., battery current information), (2) information from the AID converter (i.e., battery voltage information), and (3) remaining quantity of electric charge (i.e., remaining battery capacity information). See, e.g., Ans. 6. As the Examiner explains, Akiyama explicitly teaches that battery remaining charge can be determined by the disclosed system wherein [the] remaining period of operation of the appliance can be calculated based on this determination and displayed (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 52-58 & Col. 3, lines 1-9; see also Col. 4, lines 10-28). Ans. 6 (italics added). In other words, a skilled artisan would have understood Akiyama's remaining period of operation to be the remaining battery time. Ans. 6. The Examiner's finding is also supported by the Specification disclosure that it is the "battery remaining time calculating means" that performs the calculation. See Spec. col. 4, 11. 10-18. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Akiyama teaches the recited "determining a first battery remaining time at intervals of a first cycle period based on said battery voltage, said battery current and said remaining battery capacity." 5 Appeal2014-008354 Application 12/777,380 Additionally, Appellant argues that neither Akiyama nor Schwendinger discloses determining a second battery remaining time at a shorter cycle period. App. Br. 6-7. More specifically, Appellant maintains that the Examiner's reliance on "a matter of normal operating conditions" for the claimed power consumption change event conflicts with claim 4' s recitation that the second cycle period is for a predetermined time and will revert back to the first cycle period. App. Br. 7. Further, according to Appellant, Schwendinger' s replacement of a battery is irrelevant because the claims refer to reverting back to the increased interval time for the same battery. App. Br. 7. Appellant's argument lacks merit. As the Examiner explains, Schwendinger teaches resuming normal operation, i.e., reverting back to an increased interval time, upon replacement or recharging of the battery. Ans. 7 (citing Schwendinger i-f7 l ). "Recharging" would have at least suggested to a skilled artisan that the increased interval would occur upon recharging the same battery. As such, we are not persuaded that Schwendinger and Akiyama fail to teach this limitation. As the Examiner identifies, Schwendinger teaches determining a second battery remaining time in response to power consumption change events, such as detecting a low battery condition, and checking the battery condition in shorter time intervals. Ans. 7. The Examiner also explains that power consumption events are known in modem day devices and that Akiyama, for example, teaches updating and displaying battery remaining time based on a change in a power consumption event, i.e., whether the displays screen is on or off or when a call is in progress. Ans. 7. We are not persuaded of error in these findings. 6 Appeal2014-008354 Application 12/777,380 Appellant also challenges Akiyama's teaching of displaying said first battery remaining time on a display unit. See Reply Br. 2. This argument, however, was raised for the first time in the Reply Brief and is therefore waived as untimely. Compare Reply Br. 2 with App. Br. 6-7. See also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[The reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not."). In addition, we find the Examiner's position with respect to this limitation has not shifted between the Final Action and the Answer. Compare Final Act. 2 with Ans. 6. Moreover, this argument is unsupported. Notably, Akiyama expressly states that "the user can become aware of how long the operation of the appliance can be continued to be performed on the basis of the display of the remaining time of the battery ... . " Akiyama, col. 3, 11. 3-6 (emphasis added). We also note that merely depicting a value on a display, without more, would not distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art combination. See, e.g., MPEP § 2111.05, 9th ed., Mar. 2014 ("[W]here the claim as a whole is directed conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer- readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists."). With respect to claim 2, Appellant notes that claim 2 requires that the "power consumption event include[] at least one of a change in power- saving settings, ON/OFF control of a battery-life extending function, and a change in luminance of said display unit." App. Br. 7; Reply Br 2. Appellant contends these events are "different from the low battery 7 Appeal2014-008354 Application 12/777,380 conditions disclosed by Schwendinger." Reply Br. 3. Appellant's arguments, however, are unavailing because they fail to address the additionally relied upon teachings of Akiyama. For example, the Examiner finds Akiyama's mobile device may display battery remaining time based on whether the display screen is on or off, i.e., a change of luminance of the display unit. See, e.g., Ans. 7. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, claims 1 and 2, as well as claims 4---6, 8-10, and 12, not argued with particularity, are unpatentable over Akiyama and Schwendinger. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 3, 7, 11, and 13-18 Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the remaining obviousness rejections. See App. Br. 5 (indicating that Appellant is only appealing the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10 and 12). Therefore, we summarily affirm the remaining obviousness rejections of claims 3, 7, 11, and 13-18. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-18 under§ 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation