Ex Parte Ljung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2017

13795424 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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. 9342-537IP 6378 EXAMINER TRAN, PABLO N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/795,424 03/12/2013 54414 7590 0: MYERS BIGEL, P.A. P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 Peter Ljung 03/28/2017 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 SONY CORPORATION1 Appeal 2017-001172 Application 13/795,424 Technology Center 2600 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 and 21—24. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1—15 and 21—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by LaLonde et al. (US 2009/0058635 Al; Mar. 5, 2009) (“LaLonde”). Final Act. 2—6. We reverse. 1 The named inventors are Peter Ljung and Johan Wadman. Appeal 2017-001172 Application 13/795,424 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “methods of communicating a command via short-range communications.” Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A method of operating a short-range Radio Frequency (RF) device, comprising: transmitting, to an anonymous portable electronic device that is anonymous to the short-range RF device, identification information that identifies the short-range RF device, using a short-range RF communication protocol; and receiving a command, responsive to the identification information, from a server via a first device or the anonymous portable electronic device using the short-range RF communication protocol to control a second device associated with the short-range RF device. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS The Examiner finds LaLonde describes all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. Appellant contends that “it is not entirely clear to Assignee which elements from LaLonde are alleged to correspond to the particular claim elements.” App. Br. 5. Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. In a first possible mapping of claim 1 to LaLonde: “patient medical device 13 of LaLonde is alleged to correspond to the recited short- range RF device and portable patient communicator (PPC) 14 is alleged to correspond to the portable electronic device that is anonymous to the short- range RF device.” App. Br. 5. For this first possible mapping, Appellant argues “LaLonde explains that the medical device 13 and the portable patient communicator (PPC) are uniquely assigned/paired/associated with each other and with a particular patient 12A.” App. Br. 5 (citing LaLonde 2 Appeal 2017-001172 Application 13/795,424 174); see also App Br. 6 (“[As shown in Fig. IB,] LaLonde’s PPC 14 is not anonymous to the medical device 13, for at least the reason that the PPC 14 and the medical device 13 are uniquely assigned/paired/associated with each other and with the particular patient 12A.”) ii. In a second possible mapping of claim 1 to LaLonde: “a first PPC 14 of one patient 12A corresponds to the recited short-range RF device and a second PPC 14 of a second patient (12B, 12C,..., 12D) corresponds to the portable electronic device that is anonymous to the short-range device.” App. Br. 7. For this second possible mapping, Appellant argues LaLonde does explain that the PPCs 14 assigned to the various patients 12A through 12D can communicate with one another through ad hoc peer-to-peer (P2P) networking. (LaLonde, paragraph 82). Conventional P2P networking involves each node in the network (i.e., each PPC 14) serving as both clients and servers to other nodes. (LaLonde, paragraph 82). Clients and servers in a conventional P2P network are not anonymous to each other. App. Br. 7; see also App. Br. 7 (“there is no teaching or suggestion in LaLonde that the PPC devices assigned to the various patients 12A through 12D are connected in an anonymous P2P network.”) In the Examiner’s Answer, in response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner clarifies the mapping of claim 1 to LaLonde is the second possible mapping: LaLonde disclose[s] a method of operating a short-range Radio Frequency (RF) device (see at least fig. lB/no. 14A), comprising transmitting, to an anonymous portable electronic device (see at least fig. lB/no. 14B . . . 14D, wherein it is clear that these devices are anonymous prior to being discovered within the ad- hoc network, see at least fig. lB/no. 34) that is anonymous to the short-range RF device, identification information that identifies 3 Appeal 2017-001172 Application 13/795,424 the short-range RF device (see at least fig. 1 B/no. 308 [sic]), using a short-range RF communication protocol[.] Ans. 3^4. In the Reply Brief, for the second possible mapping of claim 1 to LaLonde, which the Examiner clarified in the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant further argues [Conventional P2P networking involves each node in the network serving as both a client and server to other nodes. To actually transmit information between two devices using P2P networking, the two devices would not be anonymous to each other. While the statement in the Examiner’s Answer that the devices are anonymous prior to being discovered in the ad-hoc network may be true, the devices cannot transmit information to one another prior to being discovered. Reply Br. 2. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that LaLonde does not disclose the key disputed limitation of claim 1. With respect to the mapping of claim 1 to LaLonde that was clarified in the Examiner’s Answer, LaLonde (1 82) discloses Another embodiment involves ad hoc peer-to-peer (P2P) networking, an example of which is depicted by the peer association 34. A peer-to-peer network does not involve traditional clients or servers, but rather the PPCs 14 serve as nodes functioning as both client and servers to other nodes. In this manner, a PPC 14 can use another patient’s 12B, 12C PPC as a relay to the WLAN 32 or mobile network(s) 20. We agree with Appellant that, to the extent first and second PPCs are anonymous to each other prior to those PPCs joining the ad-hoc P2P network, once those PPCs have joined the ad-hoc P2P network to serve as nodes in the ad-hoc P2P network, those PPCs are no longer anonymous to each other to permit their functioning as clients and servers on the ad-hoc 4 Appeal 2017-001172 Application 13/795,424 P2P network. See LaLonde 1 82 (“A peer-to-peer network does not involve traditional clients or servers, but rather the PPCs 14 serve as nodes functioning as both client and servers to other nodes.”) The language of claim 1 (emphasis added) recites: “transmitting, to an anonymous portable electronic device that is anonymous to the short-range RF device.” In LaLonde, in order for a particular PPC 14 to become capable of transmitting, that PPC and the PPC to receive the transmission both join the ad-hoc P2P network as nodes, and are not anonymous to each other. To the extent a particular PPC 14 is anonymous, the anonymous PPC has not yet joined the ad-hoc network and, while anonymous, is not capable of transmitting or receiving over the ad-hoc network. See Lalonde | 82. In addition, with respect to the first possible mapping of claim 1, we also agree with Appellant that the PPC 14 and the medical device 13 are uniquely assigned/paired/associated with each other and with the particular patient 12A. See LaLonde 174 (“Each PPC 14 is uniquely assigned to a particular patient 12A, preferably through a process generally referred to herein as ‘pairing’ in accordance with various embodiments. As used herein, pairing generally refers to the unique association created between the patient’s PPC 14 and the medical device(s) 13 associated with that patient.”) Thus, when medical device 13 transmits to PPC 14, PPC 14 is not anonymous to the medical device 13; rather, PPC 14 is uniquely assigned to the patient and associated with the patient’s medical device 13. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2—11, 21, and 23, which depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12, which similarly recites “a transmitter configured to transmit, to an 5 Appeal 2017-001172 Application 13/795,424 anonymous portable electronic device that is anonymous to the short-range RF device, identification information that identifies the short-range RF device, using a short-range RF communication protocol,” or of claims 13— 15, 22, and 24, which depend from claim 12. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 and 21—24 is reversed. REVERSED 6