Ex Parte LiuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201311391018 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation