Ex Parte Nagy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2012

11036666 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TOM NAGY and RUSSELL N. OWEN
____________

Appeal 2010-002827
Application 11/036,666
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and STANLEY M.
WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002827
Application 11/036,666

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-22, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of remotely locating a lost
mobile communication device. Title.

Representative Claim
1. A method of locating a lost wireless communication
device in which user preferences of the lost wireless
communication device have been configured to disable device
notifications, comprising the steps of:

contacting a remote server and indicating that the
wireless communication device is lost;

activating a lost device policy setting in a database
coupled to the remote server, the lost device policy setting
indicating that the wireless communication device is lost;

in response to activation of the lost device policy setting,
transmitting a remote location command from the remote server
to the wireless communication device via a wireless network;
and

receiving the remote location command at the lost
wireless communication device and processing the remote
location command by reconfiguring the user preferences of the
wireless communication device to enable device notifications
Appeal 2010-002827
Application 11/036,666

3
such that a user of the wireless communication device can
locate the device.

Prior Art
Kenney US 2005/0186954 A1 Aug. 25, 2005
(filed Feb. 20, 2004)

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-17, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Kenney.
Claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kenney and Official notice.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that paragraphs 11 and 52 of Kenney describe the
ability to sound an alarm regardless of the device’s preferences. Ans. 10.
Appellants contend that the audio alarm feature described in paragraphs 11
and 52 of Kenney operates regardless of any user preferences contained on
the mobile device. Appellants conclude that Kenney does not describe
“reconfiguring the user preferences of the wireless communication device to
enable device notifications such that a user of the wireless communication
device can locate the device” as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree with Appellants. Paragraphs 11 and 52 of Kenney describe
causing the mobile device to directly sound an alarm. Page 9 of Appellants’
Specification describes locating the mobile device by, inter alia,
reconfiguring the user preferences to enable notifications, or causing the
mobile device to directly execute a notification. The term “reconfiguring the
Appeal 2010-002827
Application 11/036,666

4
user preferences of the wireless communication device to enable device
notifications such that a user of the wireless communication device can
locate the device,” when read in light of the Specification, excludes causing
the mobile device to directly execute a notification as described by Kenney.
Independent claim 12 contains a limitation similar to that of claim 1
for which the rejection fails. We do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 12 and corresponding dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13-17,
and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-17, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Kenney is reversed.
The rejection of claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kenney and Official notice is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk