Ex Parte Liu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2013

11391018 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

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.
11/391,018 03/28/2006 Chuanli Liu 2002-261 / PU06 0014 3429
54472 7590 05/31/2013
COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON
1400 CRESCENT GREEN
SUITE 300
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
PEREZ, ANGELICA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2013 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 CHUANLI LIU
____________

Appeal 2011-000444
Application 11/391,018
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, 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 1-20 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-000444
Application 11/391,018

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to wireless peripherals
having multi-function controls (Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A wireless peripheral compatible with a mobile
device, the wireless peripheral comprising:

a control accessible by a user of the wireless peripheral;
and

a processor configured to perform a first function related
to operation of the mobile device responsive to activation of the
control when the peripheral device is in a first operating mode,
and configured to perform a different second function related to
operation of the mobile device responsive to activation of the
control when the peripheral device is in a different second
operating mode.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kang (US 7,119,827 B2, issued
October 10, 2006), Delalat (WO 00/65803), and Turnbull (US 6,922, 473
B2, issued July 26, 2005) (Ans. 3-12).
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Kang, Delalat, Turnbull, and
Bodley (US 7,089,042 B2, issued August 8, 2006) (Ans. 12-14).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner is incorrect in finding Kang,
Delalat, and Turnbill does not teach or suggest a modal wireless peripheral
Appeal 2011-000444
Application 11/391,018

3
having a multifunctional control, the combination renders Kang inoperable,
and there is no motivation to combine these references (Br. 5-6).
Specifically, Appellant contends none of the references discloses “a modal
wireless peripheral with a multi-function control that controls different
mobile device functions dependent on the operating mode of the wireless
peripheral” (Br. 5).
The Examiner finds Kang does teach a wireless peripheral device
(earphone 200 and key 210 in Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 43-47; Ans. 7, 15). That is,
Kang discloses a mobile device connected to the key on the earphone via a
jack connector or via wireless communication means (col. 5, ll. 43-47).
Further, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, there is no mention of “modal”
in Appellant’s claims. Additionally, Appellant’s Specification states “Either
a wireless peripheral 10, mobile device 12, or both are modal” (Spec. ¶
[0015]). Thus, even if Kang did not disclose a modal peripheral device, the
claim does not require this feature and Appellant’s own Specification states
only one of the devices needs to be modal. We also agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and responsive arguments as our own with respect to
Appellant’s combination, inoperability, and “no motivation to combine”
arguments. Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s findings.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent
claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20, dependent therefrom and not argued
separately (Br. 7).
Appeal 2011-000444
Application 11/391,018

4
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Appellant asserts Bodley does not
cure the deficiencies of Kang, Delatat, and Turnbill, and also does not
discuss a type of mode-specific operation of a headset control, it merely
adjusts the volume of a speaker (Br. 8).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bodley discloses closed/open
states of an auxiliary device that adjusts volume according to a state (mode
of operation) of the auxiliary device (Ans. 18; Bodley, col. 6, ll. 59-67).
Appellant has not rebutted these findings. Thus, for the above reasons, we
are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 8 and 18.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is 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).

AFFIRMED

pgc