Ex Parte Camp et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 17, 201611550169 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation