Ex Parte Rosay

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2016

11915488 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111915,488 10/06/2009
65913 7590 04/05/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arnaud Rosay
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.
00 0060US1 6353
EXAMINER
HICKS, AUSTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2118
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARNAUD ROSA Y
Appeal2014-007978
Application 11/915,488
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14--20. Claims 2, 4, 11, and 13 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-007978
Application 11/915,488
Claim 1 is illustrative:
Exemplary Claim
1. A portable electronic terminal configured to shift to an
idle or sleep mode during which selective powering off volatile
memory in the portable electronic terminal takes place to save
energy, the portable electronic terminal comprising:
a NVRAM (Non-Volatile Random Access Memory),
which consumes no power to retain stored information,
retaining, when in the idle or sleep mode, a program code of a
background task and data necessary for the execution of the
background task during the idle or sleep mode that is stored
therein;
a calculator configured to execute the program code
directly from said NVRAM when the terminal is in the idle or
sleep mode, wherein the NVRAM stores the program code and
the data;
a Non-Volatile Read Only Memory (NVROM) that is
unpowered during the idle or sleep mode; and
a VRAM that is powered off in the idle or sleep mode.
Rejections1' 2
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Silvester (US 6,631,469 Bl, Oct. 7,
2003). Final Act. 3-7.
1 Appellant focuses the contentions on claim 1, and advances no separate,
substantive arguments for the remaining rejected claims 3, 5-7, 9, 10, and
14--20. App. Br. 4--9. Arguments not made are considered waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2 The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 8 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Based on an amendment filed after the final
rejection, the§ 112 rejection was withdrawn. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-007978
Application 11/915,488
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Silvester, Hidaka (US 2005/0083770 Al, Apr. 21, 2005),
and Cheng (Memory, Microprocessor, and ASIC, chapter 7 (Wai-Kai Cheng
ed., CRC Press 2003)). Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Silvester and Dale (US 2002/0128923 Al, Sept. 12,
2002). Final Act. 8.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Silvester and Miyashita (US 2002/0019225 Al, Feb. 14,
2002). Final Act. 8-9.
Appellant's Contentions
1. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 8 because the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed
"sleep or idle mode" is unreasonably broad (App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br.
2).
2. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 8 because Silvester's "wake mode" is not a "sleep or idle
mode" as claimed "given Sylvester's separate definitions of sleep and
wake modes" (App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2--4).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's above
contentions 1and2. With regard to claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14--20, we
adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
3
Appeal2014-007978
Application 11/915,488
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
As to Appellant's above contention 1, Appellant has not provided an
explicit definition of "idle or sleep mode." The Specification discloses:
Accordingly, it is an object of the invention to provide a
portable electronic terminal that consumes less energy when in
the idle or sleep mode.
Spec. 2: 5---6.
During idle or sleep mode 24, in step 26, calculator 6
directly executes the program code of the background task from
NVRAM 12 and, if necessary, records updated data in NVRAM
12. Step 26 is regularly repeated throughout the idle or sleep
mode. In parallel to step 26, in step 28 at the beginning of idle
or sleep mode 24, the power of VRAM 10 and NVR OM 8 is
switched off. As a result, data recorded in VRAM 10 are lost
and memory accesses to NVROM 8 are no more possible.
NVR OM 8 and VRAM 10 remain unpowered as long as
terminal 2 is in the idle or sleep mode.
Spec. 5: 13-20.
Thus, according to Appellant's Specification, an "idle or sleep mode"
is a mode that consumes less energy (a low power mode) where background
tasks may be executed in NVRAM by a calculator, but no power is provided
to the VRAM and NVR OM. Although this disclosure is not limiting of the
claimed invention, it provides context for which the phrase "idle or sleep
mode" is interpreted.
Thus, based upon Appellant's Specification, "Appellant's idle or sleep
mode is any mode, or modes that use less than full power." Ans. 2.
4
Appeal2014-007978
Application 11/915,488
The Examiner found that Silvester discloses:
"[A] wake mode or when the mini OS is running is equivalent
to applicant's idle or sleep mode.) during which selective
powering off volatile memory (Silvester col 3 Ln. 50-55)
"computer is placed in to a sleep mode ... in this sleep mode
contents of the main memory of the computer system and the
processor states are not maintained on volatile memory
devices." The volatile memory sections are not turned back on
when the computer switches to "wake mode" and col 4 Ln. 40-
45 "The mini OS does not support full operation of main
memory or hard drive 125 ... ")in the portable electronic
terminal takes place to save energy, (Shutting down
electronic components saves energy.) and a method of
managing a portable electronic terminal when in an idle or
sleep mode during which selective powering off volatile
memory (VRAM) (Silvester col 3 Ln. 50-55 "computer is
placed in to a sleep mode ... in this sleep mode contents of the
main memory of the computer system and the processor states
are not maintained on volatile memory devices." The volatile
memory sections are not turned back on when the computer
switches to "wake mode" and col 4 Ln. 40-45 "The mini OS
does not support full operation of main memOf'f or hard drive
125 ... ")in the portable electronic terminal takes place to
save energy, (Shutting down electronic components saves
energy.) the method and the portable electronic terminal
comprising: a NVRAM (Non-Volatile Random Access
Memory), (Silvester figl low power non-volatile memory 116)
which consumes no power to retain stored information,
(non-volatile memory consumes no power to retain stored
information.)
Final Act. 4.
In other words, the Examiner finds that Silvester's wake mode
corresponds to the claimed idle or sleep mode. Ans. 2.
Based on our review of Silvester (col. 4, 11. 50-55, col. 4, 11. 40-45)
and consistent with the Examiner's stated position (Ans. 2), we interpret the
5
Appeal2014-007978
Application 11/915,488
claim language "idle or sleep mode" using the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant's disclosure - to include a mode that
consumes less energy (a low power mode) where background tasks may be
executed in NVRAM by a calculator,but no power is provided to the VRAM
and NVROM. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We
also agree with the Examiner's finding that Silvester's "wake mode"
discloses a low power mode that leaves NVROM and VRAM unpowered, a
calculator and NVRAM that retains program code of a background task and
the data necessary for the execution of a program task (Final Act. 4--5).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's second contention that Silvester's
"wake mode" is not an "idle or sleep mode" because the argued distinction is
merely a distinction in terminology rather than an actual difference in
functionality.
For the reasons set forth above, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 2)
that Sylvester would have taught or suggested all of the contested limitations
of representative claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Dependent
claims 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 19, and 20, also rejected under the first-stated ground
of rejection, fall with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Remaining Rejected Claims under§§ 103
Regarding the remaining claims rejected under § 103, Appellant urges
these claims are patentable by virtue of their respective dependencies from
claim 1 (and the remaining independent claims 8 which recites limitations
commensurate to claim 1 ). (App. Br. 4--5).
However, we find no deficiencies regarding the first-stated rejection
of independent claim 1. Appellant focuses the contentions on claim 1, and
6
Appeal2014-007978
Application 11/915,488
advance no separate, substantive arguments for the remaining rejected
claims 6, and 14--18. (App. Br. 5---6). Arguments not made are considered
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). See n.1. supra.
Accordingly, on this record, and by the preponderance of evidence,
we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's rejections of claims
1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14--20 under §103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14--
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7