Ex Parte Usui et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2012

10793679 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte NORIYOSHI USUI and YASUNORI YAMADA
____________________

Appeal 2010-002294
Application 10/793,679
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002294
Application 10/793,679

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-13, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1

We affirm.
The claims are directed to a cell phone having a broadcast receiver,
and a recording medium storing a program for controlling a broadcast
receiving function of a cell phone. See generally Spec., pgs. 1-5. Claim 1 is
representative [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]:
1. A cell phone comprising:
a radio communication transceiver/receiver unit which
transmits and receives speech or data by radio;
a broadcast receiver which receives broadcast waves such
as of a TV broadcast;
a power supply unit which supplies power to each of the
radio communication transceiver/receiver unit and the broadcast
receiver;
a plurality of batteries provided in the power supply unit;
a use management unit which manages the use of the
plurality of batteries[;]
a power supply management unit which manages supply
of power to the radio communication transceiver/receiver unit
or the broadcast receiver according to the use managed by the
use management unit;
a power supply monitoring unit which monitors the
useful power level of the batteries;

1
Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed October 9, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 9, 2009),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 7, 2009) and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed May 12, 2008).
Appeal 2010-002294
Application 10/793,679

3

a TV viewing entry information storage unit which stores
an operating condition of a function for restricting reception of
the broadcast waves when useful battery power level has
reached a predetermined value;
an alarming unit which alarms the user that the power of
a battery is nearly depleted while a broadcast is being received,
the battery supplying power to the broadcast receiver; and
a power supply restricting unit which restricts the supply
of power to the broadcast receiver after the alarm has been
provided, wherein
the TV viewing entry information storage unit sets a
plurality of useful battery power threshold levels as the
predetermined value, and
the power supply restricting unit indicates to the alarming
unit that the useful battery power threshold level should be set
to the next lower level and suspends restriction of the supply of
power to the broadcast receiver, when the power supply
restricting unit receives an instruction related to non-interrupt of
the reception of the broadcast waves.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wakamatsu (US 2001/0029196 A1) in view of Formenti
(US 2004/0192407 A1).
2
Ans. 3-9.

2
Instead of separately arguing the patentability of dependent claims 2-9 and
11-13, Appellants simply repeat the language of the claims and state that the
combination of Wakamatsu and Formenti does not teach each recited
feature. Appeal Br. 12-13. “A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires “more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”).
Appeal 2010-002294
Application 10/793,679

4

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Wakamatsu
and Formenti teaches a power supply restricting unit that indicates to an
alarming unit that “the useful battery power threshold level should be set to
the next lower level and suspends restriction of the supply of power to the
broadcast receiver, when the power supply restricting unit receives an
instruction related to non-interrupt of the reception of the broadcast waves,”
as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in claim 10?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Wakamatsu and Formenti do not teach setting a
useful battery power threshold level to a next lower level and suspending
restriction of power to a broadcast receiver when a “non-interrupt”
instruction is received. App. Br. 7-13. In particular, Appellants contend that
there is no “instruction related to non-interrupt of the reception of the
broadcast waves” in Wakamatsu because the user only continues using a
telephone function, not a broadcast function, after the low battery alarm.
App. Br. 9. Similarly, Appellants contend that Wakamatsu does not suspend
the restriction of power to a broadcast receiver because it turns off power to
the telephone function, not the broadcast function, when the lower threshold
level is reached. App. Br. 8-9. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we find
that Wakamatsu teaches the disputed features, and therefore sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
The Examiner found that Wakamatsu teaches the non-interrupt feature
of claim 1 at Figures 4 and 5A-B, and paragraphs 8-10. Ans. 4, 9.
Appeal 2010-002294
Application 10/793,679

5

Wakamatsu describes a mobile phone capable of performing the typical
functions of a telephone as well as “additional functions such as . . . a
television function.” Wakamatsu ¶¶ 8, 34. The phone includes hardware
and/or software to control the additional functions and monitor the voltage
of the phone’s battery. Wakamatsu ¶¶ 21-22, 33. Wakamatsu checks the
phone’s battery against multiple predetermined levels:
When a residual battery capacity becomes lower than a first
predetermined level, a warning is given to a user if the
additional function is being operated. . . . When the warning is
given, the user may terminate operation of the additional
function to save the battery capacity, or the user may continue
the operation of the additional function if he/she so desires.
When the battery capacity further decreases to a second
predetermined level which is lower than the first level, power
supply to the mobile phone may be cutoff.
Wakamatsu ¶¶ 8-9 (emphasis added).
Figure 4 shows the monitoring in further detail. The phone displays a
warning to the user at step S120 if the battery voltage becomes less than
V12, and turns the phone off completely at step S150 if the battery voltage
falls below V13. Wakamatsu ¶¶ 24-27. The first predetermined level V12
is used to determine whether the “additional function” (e.g., receiving a
television broadcast) should be performed. Wakamatsu ¶¶ 9-10, 24, 26-27.
The second predetermined level V13 is used to turn the phone off if the user
chose to ignore the warning and continue watching television. Wakamatsu
¶¶ 25-27.
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the “additional function” to be
continued if the user disregards the warning at step S120 is the receipt and
display of a television broadcast, not telephone communication. Wakamatsu
¶¶ 8-9, 24-27. Figure 4 clearly shows that step S160 (“V