Ex Parte Saarisalo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

12226718 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
12/226,718 10/24/2008 Mikko Saarisalo 1004289.388US
(4208-4450)
9467
10928 7590 02/21/2017
T nrke T nrH T T P
EXAMINER
IP Docket Department
3 World Financial Center
LIAO, HSINCHUN
New York, NY 10281-2101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
ptopatentcommunication @ lockelord. com
O W alker @ lockelord .com
ECJohnson @ lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO SAARISALO
Appeal 2016-004768
Application 12/226,718
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 33—45 and 47—57, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-004768
Application 12/226,718
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a mobile electronic
multifunctional device and method for managing and controlling “near field
communication in situations where the terminal is not or only partially
powered” (Spec. 1:10-12).
Independent claim 33, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
33. An apparatus comprising:
an interface to a near field communication component
configured to provide near field communication functionality;
a battery interface; and
a battery control circuit, connected to said battery
interface,
wherein said battery control circuit is configured to
control operation of said apparatus in accordance with a battery
charging condition of a battery connected to the battery
interface and to allow operation of the near field
communication component when the battery charging condition
is any of at least two of:
a normal operation condition;
a software cut-off condition; and
a hardware cut-off condition,
wherein said apparatus further comprises a storage
configured to store configurations of the near field
communication component connected via said interface to said
near field communication component to allow operation of said
near field communication component when said battery
charging condition is at least one of the software cut-off
condition and the hardware cut-off condition, and
wherein at least one software application is unavailable
to a user when said battery charging condition is the software
cut-off condition and said apparatus has at least substantially
reduced hardware functionality available to a user when said
battery charging condition is the hardware cut-off condition.
2
Appeal 2016-004768
Application 12/226,718
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 33—36, 39-42, 44, 45, 47-49, 54, 56,
and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Lessing (US
2007/0239981 Al, published Oct. 11, 2007) and Loughran (US
2003/0135769 Al, published July 17, 2003).
The Examiner rejected claims 37, 38, 43, 50-53, and 55 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Lessing, Loughran, and
Berkes (US 2005/0182976 Al, published Aug. 18, 2005).
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 33, the Examiner finds Loughran teaches a
battery charging condition of a battery is a software cut-off condition,
wherein at least one software application is unavailable to a user in the
software cut-off condition, as claimed (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4—5). Particularly,
the Examiner finds Loughran’s “economy” state disables software
applications’ features—such as spelling and grammar checker features of a
Microsoft Word application—that are “not essential to proper function of the
applications, but consume significant power,” thus teaching a software cut­
off battery condition in which at least one software application is unavailable
(Final Act. 6 (citing Loughran || 17, 22, 25, 27); Ans. 4 (citing Loughran
126)). The Examiner finds Loughran “also discloses disabling multiple
software applications for saving power” (Ans. 5). We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant that Loughran does not teach or suggest a
software cut-off condition in which “at least one software application is
unavailable to a user,” as recited in claim 33 (App. Br. 18). As Appellant
explains, Loughran’s “‘grammar check while typing’ is only a feature of the
3
Appeal 2016-004768
Application 12/226,718
MS Word application, rather than a separate application that is made
unavailable,” and Loughran does not teach disabling MS Word or other
applications for saving power (App. Br. 18 (citing Loughran || 20, 25); see
also Reply Br. 5). Rather, Loughran’s applications continue to be available
to a user when Loughran’s power management is in the economy state
(Reply Br. 5 (citing Loughran 120); App. Br. 19 (citing Loughran 121)).
A feature of an application is not the application itself (Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed term “software application” as
“read[ing] on Loughran’s software ‘features’” of MS Word (or other
application) is unduly broad (Ans. 4).
As the Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of
Lessing and Berkes cure the above-noted deficiencies of Loughran, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 33, independent
claims 40, 45, 52, 54, and 55, argued for substantially the same reasons as
claim 33, and claims 34—39, 41—44, 47—51, 53, 56, and 57 dependent
therefrom (App. Br. 22).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 33—45 and 47—57 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4