Ex Parte Creguer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 20, 2016

13570395 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/570,395 08/09/2012 80748 7590 10/24/2016 Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Aaron P. Creguer 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. POl 7977-GMVE-CD 9400 EXAMINER RUSHING, MARKS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/24/2016 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): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AARON P. CREGUER and DAVID T. PROEFKE Appeal2016-000378 Application 13/570,395 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appeal2016-000378 Application 13/570,395 Exemplary Claim Independent claims 1 and 18 illustrate the invention as follows: 1. A method for detecting a presence of one or more security token, the method comprising: transmitting, by a host device, a wake-up message configured for receipt by the one or more security token, receiving, by one or more receiving security token of the one or more security token, the wake-up message from the host device when the one or more receiving security token are located within a receiving range of the host device, based on the wake-up message and a condition of the one or more receiving security token, each of the one or more receiving security token either awakening and transmitting an identification message to the host device or returning to an inactive state, wherein the wake-up message comprises an instructional code and the identification message includes a security code that is unique to a first security token and an instruction code that is configured to selectively instruct the host device regarding a requested action; and the host device detecting the presence of the first security token based on the identification message. 18. A system for detecting presence of a user comprising: a host device configured to transmit a wake-up message, the wake-up message being configured to be received by one or more security tokens within a receiving range of the host device, and detect the presence of one or more of the one or more security tokens based on an identification message from the one or more of the one or more security tokens, the one or more security tokens configured to receive the wake-up message from the host device when located within the receiving range and configured to compare a pattern in the wakeup message with stored patterns to determine whether to wake up or return to an inactive state, based on the wake-up message and a condition of the respective one or more security 2 Appeal2016-000378 Application 13/570,395 tokens, and transmit the identification message based on determining to wake up, wherein the wake-up message comprises a security code that is unique to the host device and an instructional code that is configured to selectively instruct the one or more security tokens associated with the host device to awaken. Rejections Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gilbert (US 2006/0255908 Al, Nov. 16, 2006). Final Act. 2--4. Claims 4, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilbert. Final Act. 4--7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Soliven (US 2010/0039234 Al, Feb. 18, 2010). Final Act. 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Steele (US 5,635,923, June 3, 1997). Final Act. 8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view ofKhamham (US 5,767,784, June 16, 1998). Final Act. 8-9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Bassali (US 2011/0273268 Al, Nov. 10, 2011). Final Act. 9-10. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Suda (US 6,718,240 Bl, Apr. 6, 2004). Final Act. 10. 3 Appeal2016-000378 Application 13/570,395 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia (emphasis added), based on the wake-up message and a condition of the one or more receiving security token, each of the one or more receiving security token either awakening and transmitting an identification message to the host device or returning to an inactive state, wherein the wake-up message comprises an instructional code and the identification message includes a security code that is unique to a first security token and an instruction code that is configured to selectively instruct the host device regarding a requested action. Appellants argue Gilbert does not disclose this limitation. App. Br. 5- 6; Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue, and we agree, in Gilbert "the response data to which the Examiner's rebuttal refers indicates signal strength rather than anything that could be interpreted as 'a security code and instruction code."' Reply Br. 2. As to independent claim 18, we are persuaded by Appellants' contention that "Gilbert does not teach or suggest any security token that is configured to receive a wake-up message and 'compare a pattern in the wake-up message with stored patterns."' App. Br. 10. We agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the disclosure of Gilbert coincides with that of Appellants. See App. Br. 5-11; Reply Br. 2--4. We conclude that the Examiner's findings are not supported by Gilbert for the reasons set forth by Appellants. Therefore, on this record, we find the weight of the evidence supports the positions articulated by Appellants in the briefs. Accordingly, as such, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 18. Because we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 on appeal, we also reverse the rejections of dependent claims 2-17, which depends on claim 1. 4 Appeal2016-000378 Application 13/570,395 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 is reversed. REVERSED 5