Ex Parte Ybarra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 2016

11111051 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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. 11/111,051 04/20/2005 Sima Ybarra 03869.119052 5383 86528 7590 01/04/2017 Slay den Grubert Beard PLLC 401 Congress Avenue Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER BEZUAYEHU, SOLOMON G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2653 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): trosson @ sgbfirm.com patent @ sgbfirm. com dallen @ sgbfirm. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SIMA YBARRA and NEMATOLAH KASHANIAN Appeal 2015-001999 Application 11/111,0511 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN R. KENNY, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—25, which constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Siemens Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-001999 Application 11/111,051 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to scheduling data transmissions from a portable device to another external device. Abstract; Spec. 1. Claims 1,11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed limitations in italics): 1. A method for a portable device, comprising: inputting to the portable device a schedule for the transmission of data to an external device, wherein the schedule specifies a time at which the data is to be transmitted, a single, transmission-specific transmission type, selected by a user from among a plurality of predetermined transmission types, by which the data is to be transmitted, and the data to be transmitted; forwarding the time at which the data is to be transmitted, the transmission type by which the data is to be transmitted, and the data to be transmitted to one or more processing units of the portable device; determining, based at least in part on the schedule, that the data is to be transmitted; and in response to the determination, transmitting the data from the portable device to the external device. App. Br. 16 (Claims App’x). The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1—3, 11—13, 21, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chedella et al. (US 2006/0068850 Al; Mar. 30, 2006) (“Chedella”), Kirchmeier et al. (US 2009/0156240 Al; June 18, 2009) (“Kirchmeier”). Final Act. 2-4. 2 Appeal 2015-001999 Application 11/111,051 Claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 22, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chedella, Kirchmeier, and Hiers et al. (US 7,327,834 Bl; Feb. 5, 2008) (“Hiers”). Final Act U-5. Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chedella, Kirchmeier, and Jordan, Jr. (US 7,194,252 Bl; Mar. 20, 2007). Final Act. 5. Claims 8, 9, 18, 19, and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chedella, Kirchmeier, and Olrik (US 2004/0092266 Al; May 13, 2004). Final Act. 5-6. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chedella, Kirchmeier, and Kitajima et al. (US 2006/0111139 Al; May 25, 2006) (“Kitajima”). Final Act. 6—7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Appellants argue independent claims 1,11, and 21 as a group. We choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See id. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kirchmeier and Chedella teaches “inputting ... a single, transmission-specific transmission type, 3 Appeal 2015-001999 Application 11/111,051 selected by a user from among a plurality of predetermined transmission types.” App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, Figure 21 of Kirchmeier illustrates a portable device interface permitting a user to select a transmission-specific transmission type, among a plurality of types. Ans. 9—10. Figure 21 is reproduced below. 2081 >202t ]- 2041 Figure 21 is a user interface including a “variety of delivery methods” 2021, each with a box for user selection (specifically, by inputting a check mark). Kirchmeier 1109; Ans. 9. The delivery methods include “home telephone,” “cell phone,” “home fax,” “E-mail Address” and other methods. The “user can select or deselect” each of the delivery methods illustrated in Figure 21. Kirchmeier 1109; see also Ans. 8—9 (citing Kirchmeier || 12, 19, 101, 114). Appellants argue that Figure 21 only teaches transmission “source” or “apparatus,” and not transmission “type” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13. We, however, agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in 4 2061 2101 2081 FIG. 21 Appeal 2015-001999 Application 11/111,051 the art would understand the various “delivery methods” in Figure 21 to correspond to transmission types. Ans. 9. Selecting “E-mail Address” in Figure 21, for example, corresponds to a transmission type, as would selecting “Home Telephone,” “Fax,” or “Text Pager.” Id. Appellants, moreover, admit that “voice call,” “facsimile transmission,” and “text message” are “transmission types” as recited in the claim. App. Br. 13; see also Spec. 8 (“transmission type” may comprise a telephone call or text message); Spec 12 (“transmission type” may comprise an “email transmission”); In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim terms given their “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”). We, therefore, discern no error in the Examiner’s findings. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—3, 11— 13,21, and 25 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chedella and Kirchmeier. Regarding the remaining dependent claims (i.e., claims 4—10, 14—20, and 22—24), Appellants argue the additional references cited by the Examiner do not “make up for the deficiencies in Chedella and Kirchmeier.” App. Br. 14. Because we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ foregoing arguments regarding the combination of Chedella and Kirchmeier, we sustain the rejections of the remaining dependent claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chedella, Kirchmeier, and additional references. 5 Appeal 2015-001999 Application 11/111,051 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—25. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6