Ex Parte TarkomaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 13, 201612563768 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation