Ex Parte Tarkoma

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

12563768 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/563,768 09/21/2009
10949 7590 07115/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sasu Tarkoma
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.
042933/416697 7057
EXAMINER
BETSCH, REGIS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SASU TARKOMA 1
Appeal2015-000671
Application 12/563,768
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1-19 and 21 as anticipated by
Dettinger et al. (US 2008/0165714 Al, published July 10, 2008). 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Nokia Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Appellant presents an argument concerning the Examiner's objection to
claim 5 (App. Br. 9, cf, Final Action 2). As correctly indicated by the
Examiner, a claim objection relates to a petitionable, rather than an
appealable, matter (Ans. 6). Therefore, we will not consider this argument.
Appeal2015-000671
Application 12/563,768
We REVERSE.
Appellant claims an apparatus comprising a processor having a
memory including a computer program code configured to perform the step
"calculate a potential remaining battery life based on a proposed suspension
of at least one of the one or more activities" (independent claim 1 ).
Appellant also claims a corresponding method and computer program
product (remaining independent claims 11 and 21 ).
A copy of claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, appears below.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including
computer program code, the computer program code configured
to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the
apparatus to perform at least the following:
receive an energy budget,
determine an estimated battery consumption rate for one
or more activities;
cause display of at least one indicator related to a
projected lifespan of a battery based at least in part on the
estimated battery consumption rate of the one or more
activities,
calculate a potential remaining battery life based on a
proposed suspension of at least one of the one or more
activities, and
cause display of an additional indicator related to the
potential remaining battery life and the proposed suspension.
Appellant argues that Dettinger fails to teach the claim limitation
"calculate a potential remaining battery life based on a proposed suspension
of at least one of the one or more activities" (claim 1) (App. Br. 6-9).
2
Appeal2015-000671
Application 12/563,768
In response, the Examiner refers to, inter alia, Dettinger's disclosure
regarding "estimates of time of available charge based on historical usage
patterns" (Dettinger i-f 30) (Ans. 2-3) and argues that the above claim
limitation "is met by [Dettinger] showing how much power each activity
would consume of the remaining power" (Ans. 4).
Appellant replies by pointing out that the estimates of time referred to
in Dettinger's i-f 30 are based on historical usage patterns rather than a
proposed suspension of an activity as required by the independent claims
(Reply Br. 2).
Based on the record before us, Appellant's position possesses
convincing merit. Neither i-f 30 nor Dettinger's other disclosures cited by the
Examiner teach calculating a potential remaining battery life "based on a
proposed suspension of at least one of the one or more activities" in
accordance with the independent claims on appeal. For this reason, we do
not sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 1-19 and 21 as anticipated by
Dettinger.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
3