Ex Parte HRABAK

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 17, 2018

14100051 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/100,051 12/09/2013 70422 7590 07/19/2018 LKGLOBAL (GM) 7010 E. COCHISE ROAD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ROBERT A. HRABAK 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. P023217-US-NP/003.1024 4628 EXAMINER JUSTUS, RALPH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/19/2018 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): gm@lkglobal.com gmcruise@lkglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT A. HRABAK Appeal2018-000163 Application 14/100,051 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to "controlling operating states of Bluetooth interfaces." Spec. ,r 1. Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitation at issue emphasized: 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is GM Global Technology Operations LLC. Br. 4. Appeal2018-000163 Application 14/100,051 1. A first Bluetooth-enabled device, comprising: a first Bluetooth module comprising: a classical Bluetooth interface designed to operate in a first set of operating states comprising an enabled state and a disabled state; and an interface controller in operable communication with the classical Bluetooth interface and being designed to control, based on proximity between the first Bluetooth module and a second Bluetooth module of a second Bluetooth-enabled device, the first set of operating states of the classical Bluetooth interface. Rejection Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Patel et al. (US 2011/0028093 Al; Feb. 3, 2011), Azogui et al. (US 2014/0357192 Al; Dec. 4, 2014), and Hillyard (US 8,954,007 B2; Feb. 10, 2015). Final Act. 4. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Patel, Azogui, and Hillyard teaches or suggests "an interface controller ... designed to control, based on proximity between the first Bluetooth module and a second Bluetooth module of a second Bluetooth-enabled device, the first set of operating states of the classical Bluetooth interface," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Patel discloses detecting proximity between a Bluetooth device and a Bluetooth base station, then adjusting an environmental control based on that proximity, such as turning lights on/off or adjusting volume based on the distance between the two Bluetooth machines. Patel ,r,r 124--126. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Patel discloses "an enabled/disabled state of 2 Appeal2018-000163 Application 14/100,051 devices ... dependent upon ... proximity ... of Bluetooth devices." Ans. 10. Nevertheless, although Patel discloses controlling lights or volume, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to show how Patel teaches or suggests controlling "operating states of the classical Bluetooth interface" based on proximity. Br. 14--15. The Examiner determines that "[ e ]stablishing communications between Bluetooth devices and their respective interface modules becoming enabled/on or disabled/off, based on device proximity, is an inherent feature of Bluetooth pairing." Ans. 10. Inherency, however, requires that "the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art." Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the Examiner has not identified anything in the record before us to suggest that "an enabled state and a disabled state" based on proximity is necessarily present in a Bluetooth pairing. Moreover, the Examiner has not otherwise shown that Patel teaches or suggests the disputed recitation. In addition to Patel, the Examiner also determines that Azogui teaches or suggests "a first set of operating states comprising an enabled and disabled state" based on its disclosure of an "Enable/Disable Threshold" mode. Ans. 10 ( citing Azogui ,r,r 50, 88). Azogui discloses that "[ w ]hen the proximity for a device reaches the distance threshold a proximity event may be triggered," and that the enabling threshold can be different than the disabling threshold (e.g., one at 1.5 meters and the other at 4 meters). Azogui ,r 50. Yet the Examiner fails to explain how Azogui's proximity events relate to "an enabled state and a disabled state" of "the classical Bluetooth interface." See App. Br. 17. 3 Appeal2018-000163 Application 14/100,051 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, and their dependent claims 2-13 and 15-22. DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22. REVERSED 4