Ex Parte Chitlur

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2014

11867484 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SUCHITHRA NARASIMAHALU CHITLUR ___________ Appeal 2012-004802 Application 11/867,484 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KEVIN F. TURNER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 25, and 341 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to sensing enabled wireless communication devices. Specification 1. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 1–35. Answer 5–15. Appeal 2012-004802 Application 11/867,484 2 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method of locating and safeguarding information of wireless communication devices comprising: receiving a notification from a sensing device on a wireless communication device, wherein the sensing device serves as a gateway to unique information associated with the wireless communication device; analyzing the notification to determine an attempt to access the unique information associated with the wireless communication device; requesting authentication information if an attempt to access the unique information associated with the wireless communication device is determined; receiving authentication information; and subsequently alerting an interested party and providing the interested party with identification information associated with the wireless communication device if the attempt to access the unique information associated with the wireless communication device is not authenticated, otherwise providing access to the unique information if the attempt is authenticated. Rejections on Appeal Claims 11 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. Answer 4. Claims 11 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Answer 5. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 25, 26, 30, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Satou (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0058064 A1; published March 16, 2006) and Tu (U.S. Patent Number 7,574,235 B2; issued August 11, 2009). Answer 5–8. Appeal 2012-004802 Application 11/867,484 3 Claims 12–14, 16, 17, and 20–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tu and Satou. Answer 8–10. Claims 3 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Satou, Tu, and Kolev (U.S. Patent Number 6,356,753 B1; issued March 12, 2002). Answer 10–11. Claims 4 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Satou, Tu, Kolev, and Ha (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0051101 A1; published February 28, 2008). Answer 11. Claims 5, 29, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Satou, Tu, and Bishop (U.S. Patent Number 6,052,604; issued April 18, 2000). Answer 12. Claims 7 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Satou, Tu, and Chandran (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0276175 A1; published December 7, 2006). Answer 13. Claims 11 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Satou, Tu, and Zicker (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0026649 A1; published February 3, 2005). Answer 13–14. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tu and Barvesten (U.S. Patent Number 5,933,773; issued August 3, 1999). Answer 14. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tu and Narasimahalu (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0093233 A1; published April 9, 2009). Answer 14–15. Appeal 2012-004802 Application 11/867,484 4 Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tu and Chandran. Answer 15. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 15, 2011), the Answer (mailed December 8, 2011) and the Reply Brief (filed January 30, 2012). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the analysis as follows. 35 U.S.C. §112, first and second paragraphs rejections Appellant argue the Examiner erred because Appellant’s Specification provide support for the battery limitations recited in claims 11 and 34. Appeal Brief 11 (citing Specification ¶¶ 16, 21, and 24). However, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because the Specification is silent in regard to activating an internal battery upon the removal of mobile device’s battery as recited in the claims. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs rejections of claims 11 and 34 for the reasons articulated above. Appeal 2012-004802 Application 11/867,484 5 35 U.S.C. §103(a) rejections Appellant argues that Satou’s identification number of the IC card is merely an identification number stored in the IC card to identify the card and therefore expresses no information as to any attempt to access the mobile device’s unique information as required in claim 1. Appeal Brief 7–9. We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because Satou’s IC card, after insertion within the mobile device, requires the user to enter a password if the IC card is not recognized, therefore providing notification of an attempt to access the device’s unique information.2 Answer 7, 16. Consequently, neither claim 1’s nor claim 25’s “notification” distinguishes over Satou’s requirement to enter an identification number upon notification that the IC card is not recognized. Appellant further argues that Tu “fails to teach, suggest or disclose providing ‘a notification that determines an attempt to access unique information’” as recited in claims 1 and 25. Appeal Brief 9. We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because the Examiner relied upon Tu for disclosing alerting an interested party with identification information associated with a wireless communications device upon an attempt to access the device’s unique information. Answer 7. The Examiner relied upon Satou to disclose notification upon a mobile device’s access. Answer 6. 2 During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appeal 2012-004802 Application 11/867,484 6 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 25 for the reasons articulated above. Appellant argues both Satou’s and Tu’s authentication are performed “in response to an attempt to use the mobile communication terminal after replacing or inserting the SIM card, not an attempt to access unique information.” Therefore Appellant concludes Satou and Tu fail to teach the sensing device recited in claim 12. Appeal Brief 10. Tu discloses upon detection of the removal of the first SIM card with a second SIM card contacting the original owner of the mobile device. Tu, column 5, lines 12– 23. Consequently, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because claim 12 only requires “a sensing device associated with a wireless communications device to detect an attempt to access unique information of the wireless communication device” and therefore reads upon Tu’s SIM detection module/device shown in Figure 1. See Answer 8, 9, and 20. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 12, as well as, claims 2–11, 13–24, and 26–35 not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraph rejections of claims 11 and 34 are affirmed. The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1–35 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). Appeal 2012-004802 Application 11/867,484 7 AFFIRMED msc