Ex Parte Keys

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 2012

11067435 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

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. 11/067,435 02/25/2005 John Keys 42P21551 5257 45209 7590 09/24/2012 Mission/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER LIPMAN, JACOB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2012 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 JOHN KEYS ____________ Appeal 2010-004525 Application 11/067,435 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004525 Application 11/067,435 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19. Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. Introduction Appellant’s invention is directed to pairing two electronic devices by exchanging identifiers between the two devices. Appeal Brief 3-4. Illustrative Claim 1. A method comprising: pairing two electronic devices by exchanging identifiers between the two electronic devices; combining the identifiers according to a pre-selected pattern by interleaving groups of one or more bits from the respective identifiers and performing a hash operation on the interleaved identifiers; generating a synchronized, non-alphanumeric indication corresponding to the combined identifiers with both electronic devices. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Helden (United States Patent Number 7,254,367 B2; issued August 7, 2007) and Brignone (U.S. Patent Appeal 2010-004525 Application 11/067,435 3 Application Publication Number 2006/0174129 A1; published August 3, 2006). Answer 3-5. Claims 5, 12 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Helden, Brignone and Hind (United States Patent Number 6,980,660 B1; issued December 27, 2005). Answer 5. Issue on Appeal Does Helden and Brignone, alone or in combination, disclose “generating a synchronized, non-alphanumeric indication corresponding to the combined identifiers with both electronic devices” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant contends that independent claim 1 recites the claim limitation, “generating a synchronized, non-alphanumeric indication corresponding to the combined identifiers with both electronic devices” and claims 8 and 15 recited similar limitations. Appeal Brief 6. Appellant argues that: The Office Action cites Helden as disclosing generation of a synchronized indication corresponding to the combined identifiers. See page 3. However, by the Examiner's own analysis, Helden merely discloses emitting a tone or turning off an LED when in whisper mode. See page 2 and also page 3. Thus, the Office Action does not even assert that Helden discloses either 1) synchronization of the non-alphanumeric indication or 2) that the indication corresponds to the combined identifiers. Appeal Brief 6. Appeal 2010-004525 Application 11/067,435 4 The Examiner finds: Helden teaches the limitation by disclosing that two devices emit either a tone or turn off an LED in response to the combining of identifiers during the pairing process (Helden, column 7 lines 28-35). Both devices emit the tone or turn off the LED in response to the same stimulus thus they are synchronized. Further, the tone or LED action corresponds to the combined identifiers because it signals the completion of the pairing process in which identifiers are combined. The term "corresponding" is a broad term and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the teachings of Helden meet the claimed limitations. Answer 5-6. Helden discloses: Exiting whisper mode may occur when the user ceases the action which initiated whisper mode, such as, but not limited to, releasing a whisper mode activation button 46. Exiting whisper mode may also occur at a predetermined time after the initiating action occurred, or it may last only until all necessary parameters to establish a unique paired communication have been exchanged. In other embodiments, exiting whisper mode may occur a predetermined time after a last user action. [O]ne or both of the wireless devices being paired signals that whisper mode communication has been exited and that pairing and configuration has ended. This may be signaled by, for instance, a light emitting diode (LED) that has been on during whisper mode, going off, or by an appropriate tone being emitted or ceasing to be emitted. Helden, Column 7, lines 28-39. It is evident that Helden does not merely disclose “emitting a tone or turning off an LED when in whisper mode” as Appellant argues (Appeal Appeal 2010-004525 Application 11/067,435 5 Brief 6), Helden discloses emitting a tone or turning off the LED when the “whisper mode communication has been exited and that pairing and configuration has ended.” Helden, Column 7, lines 35-36. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 8 and 15 not separately argued. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-19 not separately argued. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are affirmed. 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tkl