Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

14180973 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/180,973 02/14/2014
68103 7590 09/24/2018
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nam-Hoon KIM
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.
0201-0992 7110
EXAMINER
COSME, NATASHA W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAM-HOON KIM, JEONG-GWAN KANG,
and HYUN-SU HONG 1
Appeal 2018-003371
Application 14/180,973
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, 19, and 20,
constituting all claims currently pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2
Appeal 2018-003371
Application 14/180,973
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "an alarm method and apparatus
for a mobile communication terminal having a phone call function." Spec.
,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for executing an alarm in a mobile
communication terminal, the method comprising:
detecting a location of the mobile communication
terminal when a rejection of a call request occurs;
determining whether the location of the mobile
communication terminal changes;
executing an alarm that recommends a user of the mobile
communication terminal to call a caller who made the call
request when the location of the mobile communication
terminal changes; and
cancelling the executing of the alarm if detecting a call
log associated with the caller before executing the alarm.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Egami et al. (US 2005/0153747 Al;
published July 14, 2005) ("Egami"), Kao et al (US 2012/0176236 Al;
published July 12, 2012) ("Kao"), and Agozo (US 2007/0004383 Al;
published Jan. 4, 2007). Final Act. 3. 2
2 The Examiner's statement of rejection includes claim 10, which is rejected
under Agami, Kao, Agozo, and Lynch (see Final Act. 11). We find this to
be a harmless typographical error.
2
Appeal 2018-003371
Application 14/180,973
Claims 2--4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Egami, Kao, Agozo, and Lynch (US
2011/0076989 Al; published Mar. 31, 2011). Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Egami,
Kao, and Agozo teaches or suggests "cancelling the executing of the alarm if
detecting a call log associated with the caller before executing the alarm," as
recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent
claim 11?
Appellants contend Agozo teaches the user suspending the reminder
event after the reminder has been triggered and provided to the user, but
does not teach "cancel[ling] the reminder event if a controller of the mobile
station detects a call log associated with the call identifier before the
reminder event is provided to the user." Reply Br. 4. Specifically,
Appellants argue Agozo teaches receiving a triggered reminder event
associated with a call identifier and removing the saved reminder event when
the available selection of a suspend reminder selection is selected by the
user. App. Br. 5---6. However, according to Appellants, the claimed
cancelling of the alarm is performed "without a user input (i.e.,
automatically)." Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds Agozo' s receiving a triggered reminder event
associated with a call identifier, and providing the call identifier with
reminder selections for user input including a suspending the reminder
selection, teaches the claimed cancelling the executing of the alarm. Final
Act. 5 ( citing Agozo Figs. 4, 5, ,r,r 25-29). Specifically, the Examiner finds
3
Appeal 2018-003371
Application 14/180,973
the claim does not recite that the alarm event is automatically removed
depending on the call log detection as argued by Appellants. Ans. 3--4.
According to the Examiner, Agozo' s provision of the call identifier with
reminder selections including a suspend reminder selection that suspends
(i.e., removes locally) the reminder event teaches cancelling executing of the
alarm if detecting a call log associated with the caller before executing the
alarm. Ans. 4; see Ans. 3.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' Specification provides examples of the preset alarm not being
"executed if a call log associated with the caller is detected." Spec. ,r 56; see
Spec. ,r 58. For example, Appellants' Specification describes "[i]f the user
has already received another call from the previous caller without a call
rejection or has already made a call to the caller before the alarm is
executed, the present disclosure may control the alarm not to be executed."
Spec. ,r 60. However, Appellants' Specification does not, even by way of
example, describe that the cancelling of the alarm is done "automatically" or
"without user input." The claimed "cancelling the executing of the alarm if
detecting a call log associated with the caller before executing the alarm," in
light of Appellants' Specification, does not preclude teachings including
cancelling the executing of the alarm in response to detecting a call log
associated with the caller before the alarm and in response to user input.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 5), Agozo describes "after a
predefined time duration has passed, the reminder event is triggered ....
Responsive to receiving 504 this triggered reminder event, which is
associated to a call identifier, the process 500 provides 506 the call identifier
to the user." Agozo ,r 27; see Agozo Fig. 5. Agozo also describes (see Final
4
Appeal 2018-003371
Application 14/180,973
Act. 5) the "user can also choose to suspend the reminder event, and in such
a case, the suspend reminder selection 512 is selected ... the saved reminder
event is removed 522 from the mobile station." Agozo ,r 29; see also Agozo
Fig. 5. In other words, Agozo teaches triggering a reminder event, providing
the call identifier to the user, a user selecting to remove the reminder event
from the mobile station, and removing the reminder event after receiving the
call identifier and the user selection.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed cancelling the executing, encompassing cancelling the alarm in
response to detecting a call log associated with the caller before the alarm
and in response to user input, precludes Agozo' s removing the reminder
event after receiving a call identifier and user selection to suspend.
Appellants have not explained why Agozo' s removing the reminder event
does not teach the claimed cancelling the executing of the alarm; or why
Agozo' s suspending after receiving the call identifier and user selection to
suspend does not teach the claimed "if detecting a call log associated with
the caller before executing the alarm."
For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 (see App. Br. 6). For the same
reasons, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of dependent claims 2-
5, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20, not argued separately. See App. Br. 6.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
5
Appeal 2018-003371
Application 14/180,973
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
6