Ex Parte Hong et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 11, 2019

14595780 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/595,780 23990 7590 DOCKET CLERK FILING DATE 01/13/2015 06/13/2019 P.O. DRAWER 800889 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sung-Bin Hong 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. SP10287-US-CA 4243 EXAMINER REHMAN, MOHAMMED H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2187 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2019 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): patents@munckwilson.com munckwilson@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUNG-BIN HONG and SEUNG-HUI SUNWOO Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 1 Technology Center 2100 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 STATEMENT OF THE CASE "The present invention relates ... to an apparatus and method for booting up an e-book or a mini notebook computer with a built-in HSPA (High Speed Packet Access) module." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized. 1. A method to control booting in a mobile device with a built-in communication module, the method comprising: determining, during a booting operation, whether the communication module is mounted with a universal subscriber identity module (USIM); terminating the booting operation in response to determining that the communication module is not mounted with the USIM; and interrupting a power supply to the mobile device to restrict a use of the mobile device based on a booting operation termination time. The Rejections2 Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 15-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Johnson (US 6,381,477 Bl; Apr. 30, 2002) and Lin (US 2009/0144460 Al; June 4, 2009). Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Johnson, Lin, and Appellants' Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA"). Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Johnson, Lin, and Kim (US 2009/0088211 Al; Apr. 2, 2009). 2 Applicants' terminal disclaimer resolved the Examiner's double patenting rejection (Final Act. 2). 2 Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 ANALYSIS Appellants argue the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 15-17, and 20 based on the subject matter recited in illustrative claim 1. App. Br. 13- 15, Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants further argue the rejections of claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, and 19 based on independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, which Appellants argue are allowable for the reasons they set forth with regards to illustrative claim 1. App. Br. 15, 16. We thus address Appellants' arguments with reference to illustrative claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Johnson teaches the step of "interrupting a power supply to the mobile device to restrict a use of the mobile device based on a booting operation termination time," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3; Final Act. 3. In so doing, the Examiner first considers the scope of the claim term and, for that purpose, looks to the Specification. See id. at 5- 6. The Examiner explains that the Specification neither defines nor mentions the claim term "booting operation termination time." Id. at 6. The Examiner then identifies three paragraphs in which the Specification mentions the term "time," namely, paragraphs 11, 14, and 41. Id. Specifically, paragraph 11 recites: "A forced booting termination message is displayed if the communication module is not mounted with the USIM. And power supply is interrupted after a predetermined time from displaying the forced booting termination message." Johnson ,r 11 ( emphasis added). Paragraph 14 similarly recites: "The processor displays a forced booting termination message if the mobile device is not mounted with the communication module and the USIM and interrupts a power supply after a predetermined time from displaying the forced booting termination 3 Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 message." Id. ,r 14 (emphasis added). Paragraph 41 (referring to Figure 3) recites: "In block 310, the mini notebook computer displays a forced booting termination message on a display screen. In block 314, after a predetermined time, the power supply to the mini notebook computer is interrupted to terminate the booting operation." Id. ,r 41 (emphasis added). In light of these disclosures, the Examiner finds that the claim term at issue encompasses "interrupting the power supply after a predetermined time after determining that the communication module is not mounted." Ans. 6. Further, based on these findings from the Specification and the Specification's omission of an express discussion of the term "booting operation termination time," the Examiner construes the claimed "booting operation termination time" as referring to a predetermined time after which the power supply is interrupted. Ans. 6-7. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's interpretation of the claim term. App. Br. 13-15, Reply Br. 2--4. Applying the foregoing claim interpretation, the Examiner finds that Johnson teaches the claimed "booting operation termination time." Ans. 7. Specifically, the Examiner explains that Johnson discloses displaying a warning when a card is not present and subsequently, after a predetermined time, removing power from the device. Id.; see also Johnson at 4:35--41, 4:55---64, 5: 10-15 (disclosing that a "check card" message is displayed if a SIM card is not present and later removing power from the entire phone if battery power is missing). With reference to Johnson's Figure 5, the Examiner finds that step 202 teaches the start of a booting process. Ans. 7; Johnson at Fig. 5. Then, at step 208, the Examiner finds that Johnson teaches determining whether a SIM card is present. Id. The Examiner then finds that Johnson teaches, "when [a] SIM card is not present, after a 4 Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 predetermined time ( steps 210 and 212 ), removing power from ... the device (at 218) to restrict the device so that the device is no longer in use (at 220)." Id. Appellants dispute that Johnson teaches "removing power from the device when a SIM card is not present after a predetermined time," like Examiner asserts. Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that "[ c ]ontrary to the Examiner's assertions, at no time does Johnson disclose the concept of waiting for a specific amount of time before disabling the SIM card." Id. According to Appellants, "[t]he only criteria disclosed in Johnson for disabling the SIM card is whether or not the B+ voltage is above a threshold." Id. Appellants further argue that Johnson's steps 210 and 212, as shown in Figure 5, "merely teach that if a SIM card is not present, the phone reverts to emergency only usage (210) and continues to compare the B+ voltage to the threshold (212)." Id. Appellants finally argue that they are "unable to find any disclosure in Johnson that would suggest disabling the SIM card based on a specific amount of time." Id. For the reasons below, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Johnson's Figure 5 is reproduced below: 5 Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 FIC.5 Figure 5 discloses the following sequence: powering up a phone (step 202); after steps 204 and 206, determining whether a SIM card is present (step 208); in circumstances where the SIM card is not present, displaying "check card" and allowing emergency calls only (step 210); determining whether B+ is greater than a threshold (step 212); in circumstances where B+ is greater than the threshold, removing power from the SIM connector (step 218); and powering down the phone (step 220). As the Examiner correctly finds: Johnson specifically teaches powering up or starting boot process (at 202) of mobile device and check if a SIM card is present (at 208). Johnson further teaches when SIM card is not present after a predetermined time (steps 210 and 212), removing power from at the device ( at 218) to restrict the device so that the device is no longer in use (at 220). Ans. 7 ( citing Johnson, Fig. 2). More explicitly, we agree with the Examiner that executing each of the steps in this sequence requires a predetermined amount of time and, therefore, requires a predetermined or specific amount 6 Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 time. See id. Further, because the Examiner construes the claimed "booting operation termination time" to encompass a predetermined time after which the power supply is interrupted (Ans. 6-7), we further agree with the Examiner that Johnson teaches the claimed step of "interrupting power supply to the mobile device to restrict a use of the mobile device based on a booting operation termination time." Id. We observe that, in addition to teachings discussed above, additional teachings in Johnson disclose the claimed "booting operation termination time." For instance, Johnson teaches that the phone monitors the voltage at the B+ rail shortly after the phone is powered up. Johnson, 4:35-36. "This time is typically about 0.5 seconds. Afterwards, the B+ rail is continually monitored to determine if the voltage is above or below the threshold (5.1 V). Power interruptions of about 0.5 seconds or less are tolerated with no corrective actions." Id. at 4:36-40. We find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that this monitoring, which tolerates power fluctuations on the B+ rail of about 0.5 seconds or less, is the same monitoring that Johnson uses at step 212 of Figure 5. At step 212, the phone continues to compare the B+ voltage to the threshold. Id. at 5:44--45. Johnson further teaches that when the B+ voltage is above the threshold ( a circumstance that indicates that the battery is missing from the phone), "the controller can remove power from the SIM connector or preferably the entire phone." Id. at 5:9-11, 5:13-15. We find that Johnson's disclosure of a duration requirement for a power fluctuation in the B+ rail (i.e., a fluctuation lasting longer than 0.5 seconds), which then results in a corrective action such as removing power from the phone, teaches that Johnson's controller removes power from the 7 Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 phone based on a predetermined or specific amount of time (i.e., "a booting operation termination time"). As to Appellants' argument that Johnson fails to disclose "waiting for a specific amount of time before disabling the SIM card" (Reply Br. 3), this argument fails because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 does not require "waiting for a specific amount of time before disabling the SIM card." Claim App 'x 1. Further, we observe that even if claim 1 were to recite such a limitation, Johnson teaches this "waiting for a specific amount of time before disabling the SIM card." Johnson describes that only those power fluctuations in the B+ rail that exceed 0.5 seconds result in a corrective action such as shutting down the phone or removing power from the SIM card. Id. at 4:36-40, 5:9--11, 5: 13-15. Johnston thus teaches that the phone "waits" for a specific amount of time before executing a corrective action. In summary, Johnson teaches a monitoring feature that tolerates power fluctuations in the B+ rail that last 0.5 seconds or less, but it removes power from either the SIM connector or the entire phone if such fluctuations last longer than 0.5 seconds. Id. at 4:36-40, 5:9--11, 5:13-15. Johnson implements this feature during the booting process of a phone. Id. at Fig. 5, 5:44--51. Because Johnson teaches removing power from the entire phone when the B+ voltage is above the threshold for more than 0.5 seconds, we find that Johnson teaches the step of "interrupting power supply to the mobile device to restrict a use of the mobile device based on a booting operation termination time," as recited in claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 15-17, and 20. 8 Appeal 2017-006113 Application 14/595, 780 Appellants do not present separate bases of patentability for claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, and 19, but rather merely note their recitations of the subject matter argued for claim 1. App. Br. 15-16. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, and 19. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9