Ex Parte Fraley

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14056787 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/056,787 10/17/2013 James J. Fraley
26338 7590 03/28/2019
MERLE W. RICHMAN, III
P.O. BOX 3333
LA JOLLA, CA 92038
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PT001US21 5896
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARDT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES J. FRALEY
Appeal 2018-007 616
Application 14/056,787
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 3-17, and 23-27. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Pluto Technologies,
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007 616
Application 14/056,787
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention "relates to mobile
communication systems. Specifically, this invention relates to a mobile
device management system that optimizes the use of battery power so that
battery life is preserved." Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A mobile device network parameter selection
method, carried out automatically by one of software and
firmware operating on a mobile device, comprising the steps of:
examining a user calendar schedule stored on the mobile
device to detect events;
determining map locations for events detected in the user
calendar schedule;
storing network parameter resources corresponding to the
map locations for the detected events;
predicting network parameter resources the mobile device
may be able to utilize in a future time based on the determined
map locations for the detected events and the stored network
parameter resource; and
configuring the functionality of the mobile device for one
of minimized energy usage and data communications costs by
performing one or more data communication tasks at times and
locations based on the predictions and GPS position of the
mobile device.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3---6, 10-12, 15-17, 23-25, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (US
2007/0275700 Al, published Nov. 29, 2007) and Vuong et al. (US
2009/0149176 Al, published June 11, 2009). Final Act. 2-5; Supplemental
Office Action, dated 7/21/2016.
2
Appeal 2018-007 616
Application 14/056,787
The Examiner rejected claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Agrawal, Vuong, and Jouin (US 2009/0149176 Al,
published Mar. 28, 2013). Final Act. 5---6.
The Examiner rejected claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Agrawal, Vuong, and Bruins et al. (US 2014/0242961 Al,
published Aug. 28, 2014). Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Agrawal, Vuong, and Huang et al. (US 8,259,652 B2,
issued Sept. 4, 2012). Supplemental Office Action, dated 7/21/2016.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONUNDER35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON AGRAWAL
AND VUONG
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, and 15-17
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 10-12, and 15-17 as unpatentable over
Agrawal and Vuong.
The Examiner finds that Vuong teaches or suggests "configuring the
functionality of the mobile device for one of minimized energy usage and
data communications costs by performing one or more data communication
tasks at times and locations based on the predictions and GPS position of the
mobile device," as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3. In particular, we
understand the Examiner to be interpreting Vuong' s scanning frequencies
according to the predefined priority sequence based on location and the
registering with the network to be the recited data communication task. See,
e.g., Final Act. 3 ( citing Vuong ,r 28 and Fig. 2, item 150).
3
Appeal 2018-007 616
Application 14/056,787
Vuong is directed to a method of scanning frequencies for registration
to a wireless service provider where the method includes predefining a
priority sequence of frequencies in association with each of a plurality of
locations. Vuong, Abstract, Fig. 2. Once a location is determined based on
location information, the device then "scans frequencies according to any
priority sequence predefined for the current expected location." Vuong,
Abstract.
Appellant first points out that Vuong's device registration is not a data
communications task. App. Br. 5---6. For example, Appellant asserts that
[ o ]ne skilled in the art of mobile devices clearly knows the
difference between registering a device on a network by scanning
frequencies to look for an available cellular tower versus 'data
communication tasks'. . . A cellular device CANNOT
communicate any data until registered with a network. Vuong is
directed to efficiently registering with a system.
App. Br. 5. Additionally, Appellant contends that Vuong scans frequencies
to register a device whenever a location is determined and, as such, there is
no performing the task at times based on the predictions and GPS location.
App. Br. 5.
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that Vuong teaches or suggest "configuring the functionality
of the mobile device for one of minimized energy usage and data
communications costs by performing one or more data communication tasks
at times and locations based on the predictions and GPS position of the
mobile device," as required by claims 1 and 27. Namely, we agree that
Vuong's scanning and registration is not a data communications task. For
example, the Specification describes:
4
Appeal 2018-007 616
Application 14/056,787
The mobile device analyzes the mobile device user's
calendar schedule to download navigation data and network
parameters so that the mobile device performs certain tasks such
as downloading information and updates during times that the
mobile device is connected to lower cost network access such as
WiFi connections. By optimizing tasks such as the downloading
of information based on using low cost network resources, the
battery life of the mobile device may be increased.
Spec. ,r 5 (emphases added); see also Spec. ,r,r 81, 85, 89, 92-99, 105-115.
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Vuong' s scanning and then
registering a device with a network would be a data communication task.
Moreover, we also agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how the cited combination teaches performing the tasks
at times based on the predictions and locations. As Appellant explains,
Vuong describes scanning every time a new location is determined, not at
times based on predicted energy or cost considerations. App. Br. 6. As
such, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Vuong performs
scanning and registration at times based on the predictions.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1,
3-6, 10-12, and 15-17 as unpatentable over Agrawal and Vuong.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 7-9, 13, and 14
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, and 15-17 as unpatentable over
Agrawal and Vuong. As discussed above, we are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Agrawal and
Vuong. The additionally cited prior art references fail to cure the
5
Appeal 2018-007 616
Application 14/056,787
deficiencies. As such, we are also persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claims 7-9, 13, and 14 and reverse the rejection.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-17, and 23-
27.
REVERSED
6