Ex Parte Camp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2016

11550169 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111550, 169
54414 7590
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
10/17/2006
11/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William 0. Camp JR.
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.
1358-157 8237
EXAMINER
FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2016 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 WILLIAM 0. CAMP, JR. and PHILIP MARC JOHNSON
Appeal 2015-006876
Application 11/550, 169
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 24--28, 30, and 32--49, which are all the claims pending in this
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Mobile
Communications. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Claims 1-23, 29, and 31 are cancelled. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention "relates to the field of electronic devices in
general and, more particularly, to mobile communication terminals."
(Oct. 17, 2006 Specification ("Spec.") i-f 1.)
Claim 24 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
24. A mobile communication device comprising:
a close-range communications transceiver, at the mobile
communication device, operable to receive a close-range
communication signal from a network; and
a short-range wireless communications transceiver, at the
mobile communication device, operable to be enabled to
communicate with the network responsive to the received close-
range communication signals,
wherein the close-range communications transceiver is
operable to receive a disable signal from the network, wherein
the short-range wireless communications transceiver is disabled
responsive to the disable signal, and wherein the disable signal is
responsive to a user terminating access to a short-range access
point or to the mobiie communication device ieaving a short-
range communications coverage area.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Xydis US 2005/0044424 Al Feb.24,2005
Pitchers US 2006/0111042 Al May 25, 2006
Hurwitz et al.
US 2006/0128350 Al June 15, 2006
("Hurwitz")
Dua US 2006/0165060 Al July 27, 2006
Chia US 2006/0223536 Al Oct. 5, 2006
2
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
Rofougaran US 2008/0081631 Al Apr. 3, 2008
Claims 24--27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Xydis in view of Chia. (Final Office Action (mailed July
15, 2014) ("Final Act.") 2-5.)
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Xydis in view of Chia, and further in view of Dua. (Final
Act. 5.)
Claims 32-34, 36, and 44 3--48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chia in view of Hurwitz. (Final Office Action
(mailed July 15, 2014) ("Final Act.") 6-10.)
Claims 39--41 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rofougaran in view of Chia, and further in view of
Pitchers. (Final Act. 10-13.)
Claims 35, 37, 38, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentabie over Chia in view of Hurwitz, and further in view of
Dua. (Final Act. 13-17.)
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rofougaran in view of Chia and Pitchers, and further in
view of Dua. (Final Act. 17-19.)
3 With regard to dependent claim 44, we note that the Examiner made an
inadvertent error in not including the references cited for the rejection of
independent claim 39, which claim 44 depends from. Appellants do not
raise this issue, but it is apparent that claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rofougaran in view of Chia and
Pitchers, and further in view of Hurwitz.
3
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings
in the Answer and Final Action and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Claims 24-28 and 30
With respect to claim 24, the Examiner finds:
[Although] X ydis fails to disclose the particulars of the first
transceiver being a close-range transceiver and the second
transceiver being a short-range transceiver both located at the
mobile device[,] the examiner maintains that it was well known
in the art to provide the first transceiver being a close-range
transceiver and the second transceiver being a short-range
transceiver both located at the mobile communication device, as
taught by Chia.
(Final Act. 3.) Xydis teaches "a method of allowing access to an electronic
device (218) disposed in a working space (14) by a user (16) having a
remote device (212). An initial signal is transmitted from an access point
(20) instructing the remote device (212) to respond after a delay period."
(Xydis, Abstract, emphasis omitted.) Figures 8 and 4 of Xydis are
reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
FIG~8
"FIG. 8 [depicts] a perspective view of the working space having a plurality
of access points and a plurality of electronic devices disposed therein."
(X ydis i1 19, emphasis omitted.)
FIG·4
5
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
"FIG. 4 [depicts] an exploded view of the user having a second electronic
device and an access point for establishing communication between the
second electronic device and the access point." (Id. i-f 15, emphasis omitted.)
Appellants contend that:
a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand
that modifying the access point 20 (the alleged "first
transceiver") in FIG. 1 []of Xydis to be a close-range transceiver
using a low-power, close-range protocol at a mobile
communication device would prevent the access point 20 from
operating as an access point.
[This is because] a person having ordinary skill in the art would
understand, upon viewing FIG. 1 of Xydis, that low-power,
close-range communications would be an insufficient substitute
for the longer-range, higher-power access point 20
communications of Xydis. (See Final Action, page 21.) For
example, the present application publication discusses low-
power, close-range communications with a range of a few
inches. (Present Application Publication, paragraphs [0042]-
[0045].) Appellant respectfully submits that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would understand that replacing the
communications in FIG. 1 of Xydis with communications using
low power and a close range (e.g., a range of a few inches) would
prevent the longer-range, higher-power access point 20
communications illustrated in FIG. 1 of Xydis, which longer-
range, higher-power access point 20 communications in FIG.
1 of Xydis appear to require a range of at least several feet
and are provided with a plurality of devices 12 and 18.
(App. Br. 5---6, bold and underline in original, italics added.) In other words,
Appellants contend that the "close-range communication signal" of claim 24
is limited to "a range of a few inches" per an embodiment in the
Specification. (Spec. i-f 45 ("As shown in the embodiments of Figure 1, a
mobile terminal 100 can include a mobile near-field-communication (NFC)
6
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
transceiver l 02 that can wirelessly communicate with another NFC
transceiver when the two transceivers are in very close proximity, such as
within several inches of one another").) The Examiner responds that "Xydis
provides an illustration of [a] close-range embodiment[ in F]igure 4 [and]
further note[s] that RF tokens, cards, badges, and the like routinely utilize
close-range communication protocols." (Ans. 20.) Appellants reply that
Figure "4 ofXydis is merely an enlarged/expanded view of Xydis' user 16
and access point 20, which does not disclose or suggest a different
embodiment from that of FIG. 1 of Xydis." (Reply 4.)
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim. Although claim 24 is silent regarding the range
of the "close-range communication signal," we decline to limit the scope of
the claim to an embodiment in the Specification. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d
319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding that although the claims are interpreted in
light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into
the claims). Appellants have not offered persuasive argument and/or
evidence that the Examiner's interpretation is overly broad or unreasonable. 4
Further, we observe that the Specification, in discussing NFC, discloses that
"[ c ]lose proximity in some embodiments can be within a range of five feet."
(Spec. i-f 58.) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to modify X ydis by specifically
providing the first transceiver being a close range transceiver and
the second transceiver being a short-range transceiver located at
4 Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
7
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
the mobile communication device, as taught by Chia, for the
purpose of controlling the second wireless communication using
a low power close range protocol.
(Final Act. 4.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 24 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 24. Appellants do not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding dependent claims 25-28 and 30, but instead rely solely
on the arguments with respect to claim 24. (App. Br. 10.) Therefore, for
similar reasons as provided for claim 24, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 25-28 and 30.
Claims 32-38 and 45-49
Claim 32 recites, in part, "disabling a short-range wireless transceiver
in the mobile terminal responsive to receipt of a near-field termination
signal." The Examiner finds that:
[Although] Chia fails to disclose disabling a short-range wireless
transceiver in the mobile terminal responsive to receipt of a near-
field termination signal ... it was well known in the art to provide
disabling a short-range wireless transceiver in the mobile
terminal responsive to receipt of a near-field termination signal,
wherein the termination signal is responsive to a user terminating
access to a short-range access point or to the mobile terminal
leaving a short- range ... communications coverage area, as
taught by Hurwitz.
(Final Act. 6-7 (citing to Hurwitz i-f 24).) Appellants disagree and contend
that "Hurwitz discusses disabling client transceivers from receiving
communications from communication nodes 140 [only] upon selecting a
host. (See Hurwitz, FIG. 4, Block 410 and paragraphs [0008], [0019], and
[0024].)" (App. Br. 8, emphasis in original; Reply 4--5.)
8
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
We are not persuaded that Appellants have shown the Examiner erred.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Hurwitz, for example
in paragraph 24, teaches or suggests that "a short-range wireless transceiver
in a mobile terminal [is disabled in] respons[ e] to receipt of a near-field
termination signal." (Ans. 21; Final Act. 6-7.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 32 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 32. Appellants do not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding independent claim 45 and dependent claims 33-38 and
46-49, but instead rely solely on the arguments with respect to claim 32.
(App. Br. 8, 10.) Therefore, for similar reasons as provided for claim 32, we
also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 33-38 and 46-49.
Claims 39-44
Claim 39 recites, in part, "a second mobile transceiver operable to
transmit LAN access data beyond the dual-mode mobile terminal to a second
network transceiver in the LAN through a short-range communication link
in response to the receipt of the access data." The Examiner finds that:
it was well known in the art to provide a second mobile
transceiver that communicates LAN access data through a short-
range communication link in response to the receipt of the access
data, as taught by Pitchers.
In addition, Pitchers discloses [that] if both wireless
transceiver modules include such a controller, the mediator can
provide blocking signals to either one of the controllers of a
wireless transceiver module in response to an enabled
transmission involving the other wireless transceiver module, as
disclosed in paragraph [0018].
(Final Act. 12.) Appellants contend that because
Pitchers discusses a "blocking signal" that is generated by a
mediator 160 within an electronic device 100 to block
9
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
transm1ss10ns of a second wireless transceiver module 140 that
is also within the electronic device 100 ... [ t ]he internal use of
blocking signals between Pitchers' mediator 160 and second
wireless transceiver module 140 is not synonymous with a dual-
mode mobile terminal's mobile transceiver that is operable to
communicate LAN access data beyond the dual-mode.
(App. Br. 9-10, emphasis in original.) The Examiner disagrees and notes
that:
the claims call for LAN access data to be transmitted via the
second network transceiver in response to the receipt of access
data (which is deemed to be different and distinct from the LAN
access data) at the first network transceiver, because the claim
does not give great detail on the specifics of the LAN access data
and access data the examiner interprets the transmitted data from
the second wireless transceiver and received data by the first
transceiver to respectfully read on LAN access data and access
data.
(Ans. 22, emphasis added.) Appellants do not directly address the
Examiner's response. (See Reply 4(repeating their contention that "Pitchers
is still directed toward an internal use of blocking signals between Pitchers'
mediator 160 and second wireless transceiver module 140") (emphasis
omitted).) We are not persuaded that Appellants have shown the Examiner
erred. Appellants have not offered persuasive argument and/or evidence that
the Examiner's interpretation is overly broad or unreasonable. Moreover,
we agree with the Examiner's findings regarding this limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 39 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 39. Appellants do not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding dependent claims 40-44, but instead rely solely on the
arguments with respect to claim 39. (App. Br. 10.) Therefore, for similar
10
Appeal 2015-00687 6
Application 11/550, 169
reasons as provided for claim 24, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 40-44.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 24--28, 30, and
32--49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11