Ex Parte Korkalo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 23, 2010

10445312 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte TAPIO KORKALO, MATTI VILPPULA,
and RAMI KARJANMAA
________________

Appeal 2009-004401
Application 10/445,312
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004401
Application 10/445,312

STATEMENT OF CASE
Summary
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Background
[Appellants’ invention relates to a system, method, and]
device enabling a change of settings of applications [that are]
implemented in a mobile terminal. In order to facilitate a
change of such settings, the device comprises a storage portion
for storing a plurality of configurations. Each stored
configuration is associated to at least one location[,] and each
stored configuration defines settings for applications
implemented in the mobile terminal. The device further
comprises a controlling portion for receiving information on a
current position of the mobile terminal, for retrieving
automatically a configuration associated to a location identified
by the position information from the storage portion, and for
changing settings of applications implemented in the mobile
terminal according to the retrieved configuration. The device
can be either a mobile terminal, or a module for a mobile
terminal.
(Abstract).
Claims 1, 20, 21, and 22 are the independent claims. Claim 1 recites a
“controlling portion . . . adapted to retrieve, in case a plurality of locations
are [sic: is] identified by said position information, a configuration which is
associated to an identified location to which a highest priority was
assigned. . . .” Each of the other independent claims also sets forth language
requiring a component or a method that identifies a configuration that is
associated to an identified location to which a highest priority was assigned.
2
Appeal 2009-004401
Application 10/445,312

Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-16, and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kuwahara (US. 6,389,288 B1; issued May 14,
2002) in view of Richton (US 6,650,902 B1; issued Nov. 18, 2003).
Claims 4, 6, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kuwahara in view of Richton and Finke-Anlauff (US
5,479,476; issued Dec. 26, 1995).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kuwahara in view of Richton and Kirbas (US 2002/0123373 A1; issued Sep.
5, 2002).
The Examiner finds that “Kuwahara et al. fails to clearly disclose
wherein the user is able to prioritize information sent to the said [sic:] device
based on the location, when two or more location [sic: locations] are
identified at the same time” (Ans. 4). However, the Examiner interprets
Richton as disclosing this claim limitation (Ans. 4). More specifically, the
Examiner finds that Richton is capable of “‘customizing’ or
‘prioritizing’. . . the locations when it has been determined that multiple
locations have been detected” (Ans. 16).
Appellants argue inter alia that none of the references discloses a
system or method in which, when position information identifies a plurality
of locations, the locations are prioritized so that the mobile terminal’s
application setting configuration is retrieved for the location that was
assigned the highest priority (App. Br. 5-12).

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants: The Examiner has not established that
Richton discloses a component or a method that identifies a configuration
3
Appeal 2009-004401
Application 10/445,312

associated to an identified location to which a highest priority was assigned,
as required by each of independent claims 1 and 20-22. Richton’s mobile
unit can be programmed to retrieve types of location-based information that
are deemed to be “priorities of importance to a user” (col. 3, ll. 24-28). This
merely means, though, that a user may select desired information based upon
the user’s location. It does not necessarily mean that one portion of the
selected information is assigned a priority relative to another portion. For
example, in explaining how Richton’s disclosed scenario of traveling
constitutes a first location and an airport constitutes a second location (Ans.
16), the Examiner has not provided any evidence that Richton assigns a
higher priority to the airport information than to the traffic information or
vice versa. It may well be the case that upon approaching the airport,
Richton’s system sends both airport information and traffic information with
equal frequency or priority.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 20-22.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims or
of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-16, 19, and 23-26 which depend from these
independent claims.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 4, 6, 9,
17, and 18, the Examiner has not alleged that either Finke-Anlauff or Kirbas
teaches the disputed claim language of assigning relative priorities to
identified locations. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejections of these
claims for the same reasons.

4
Appeal 2009-004401
Application 10/445,312

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-26 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD
DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C.
918 PRINCE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
5