Ex Parte Katpelly et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2014

12327848 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/327,848 12/04/2008 Ravi Reddy Katpelly CT-DEV-003/US (P314) 5929
71739 7590 11/21/2014
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
EXAMINER
LE, TOAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte RAVI REDDY KATPELLY,
CHRISTOPHER M. AMIDON, and HUGH SVENDSEN
____________

Appeal 2013-000836
Application 12/327,848
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1–33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM.

Appellants claim a method of operating a battery-operated device
comprising "receiving, from a user of the battery-operated device, user input
defining a usage parameter for the application for the task that corresponds
Appeal 2013-000836
Application 12/327,848

2
to the desired amount of usage of the application for the task" (claim 1).
Appellants also claim a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 30)
and a battery-operated device (claim 31) which correspond to the claimed
method.

A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method of operating a battery-operated device, comprising:

● for each task of one or more tasks for each application of a plurality
of applications of the battery-operated device:

○ receiving, from a user of the battery-operated device, user
input defining a usage parameter for the application for the task that
corresponds to a desired amount of usage of the application for the task;

○ determining an estimated amount of battery life of a battery
of the battery-operated device that is sufficient to provide the desired amount
of usage of the application for the task;

○ determining whether the estimated amount of battery life is
available; and

○ if the estimated amount of battery life is available, allocating
an amount of battery life of the battery to the application for the task
corresponding to the estimated amount of battery life; and

● wherein the one or more tasks for each of the plurality of
applications form a plurality of tasks, and the method further comprises
enabling the user to prioritize the plurality of tasks.

Appeal 2013-000836
Application 12/327,848

3

The § 101 Rejection

The Examiner rejects method claims 1–29, 32, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 "because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory
subject matter" (Final Action 2).
The Examiner's § 101 rejection was made and advanced in this appeal
prior to the subject matter eligibility guidance provided by the Supreme
Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347
(2014) and provided by the June 25, 2014 "Preliminary Examination
Instructions" concerning the Alice decision. For this reason, the § 101
rejection is not ripe for review by the Board. It follows that we will not
assess the propriety of the rejection at this time.
In the event Appellants' application is further prosecuted in the
Examining Corps, the Examiner should review the above guidance in order
to determine whether a § 101, subject matter ineligibility, rejection is
appropriate.

The § 112, 2nd paragraph, Rejection

The Examiner rejects claims 28 and 29 under the 2nd paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 (Final Action 2) on the grounds that indefiniteness is
created by the claim recitation "all applications" (id. at 3; see also Ans. 26–
27).
Appeal 2013-000836
Application 12/327,848

4
This rejection is not well taken essentially for the reasons given by
Appellants (Br. 8–10). We share Appellants' view that the Examiner
appears to have confused claim breadth with indefiniteness (id. at 9).

The § 102 Rejection

The Examiner rejects claims 1–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Bell (US 2008/0186086 A1, pub. Aug. 7, 2008) (Final Action
3–18).
We sustain this rejection based on the findings of fact and rebuttals to
arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer.
The following comments are added for emphasis.
Appellants' sole argument against this rejection is that Bell does not
teach the independent claim limitation directed to user input defining a usage
parameter (Br. 10–12). For example, Appellants concede that Bell teaches
assigning priorities as to how battery power will be used based on
predetermined settings provided by a user interface but argues without
embellishment that "the priorities provided through the user interface are not
usage parameters" (id. at 11). As correctly explained by the Examiner and
not disputed by Appellants, the Specification discloses that a usage
parameter corresponds to a desired amount of usage (Ans. 30–31 citing
Spec. para. 17). Appellants fail to explain why Bell's assigned priorities do
not correspond to a desired amount of usage and concomitantly fail to
explain why these priorities do not satisfy the usage parameter limitation of
the independent claims.

Appeal 2013-000836
Application 12/327,848

5
Conclusion
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

cam