Ex Parte Tirronen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2016

12956886 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/956,886 11/30/2010 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 10/27/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mikko Tirronen 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. P4864USOO 1174 EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/27/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIKKO TIRRONEN, PHILIP GINZBOORG, SAMI VIRTANEN, KARI LEPPANEN, and MARKKU TAPIO TURUNEN Appeal2015-003584 Application 12/956,886 Technology Center 2400 Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2015-003584 Application 12/956,886 INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to selecting devices to form a community of the devices. See Spec. i-fi-12-3. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data, (2) information, and/or (3) at least one signal the data, information, and/ or at least one signal based at least in part on the following: at least one determination of one or more candidate devices within proximity of at least one device; at least one determination to initiate at least one synchronized capture of sensor data by the at least one device and at least one of the one or more candidate devices; at least one determination to form a community based, at least in part, on the at least one synchronized capture; and at least one determination to generate a community key, a community identifier, or a combination thereof based, at least in part, on the sensor data of the synchronized capture, wherein the community includes a plurality of users. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ayyagari (US 2007/0150565 Al; June 28, 2007), Vasseur (US 8,452,572 B2; May 28, 2013), and Miluzzo (US 2010/0299615 Al; Nov. 25, 2010). Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected as being as being obvious over the combination of Ayyagari, Vasseur, Miluzzo, and Falk (US 2011/0158410 Al; June 30, 2011). 2 Appeal2015-003584 Application 12/956,886 ISSUES Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues: A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ayyagari, Vasseur, and Miluzzo teaches or suggests at least one determination to form a community based, at least in part, on the at least one synchronized capture ("form community" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1? 1 B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ayyagari, Vasseur, and Miluzzo teaches or suggests at least one determination of one or more contexts, as recited in dependent claim 4? C) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ayyagari, Vasseur, Miluzzo, and Falk teaches or suggests at least one determination to encrypt communication ("encrypt" limitation), as recited in dependent claim 9? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. We disagree with Appellants' contentions that the Examiner's rejections of the claims are in error. 1 Appellants also newly contend in the Reply Brief that the cited references do not teach or suggest an additional recitation of claim 1 (the determination to initiate at least one synchronized capture of sensor data). See Reply Br. 2---6, 8. In the absence of showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the principle Brief, we decline to consider the argument and deem it waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2)(2014); In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal). 3 Appeal2015-003584 Application 12/956,886 Issue A: Claims 1-3, 5---8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 Appellants contend the combination of Ayyagari, Vasseur, and Miluzzo does not teach or suggest the "form community" limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-11. In support of this contention, Appellants argue that any alleged communities formed in Ayyagari are not based on captured sensor data, but are based on the already known fact of the known location of the sensors. See App. Br. 6-8. The Examiner finds A yyagari teaches forming a group of network sensors capable of cooperative information gathering. Ans. 10. The Examiner correlates the grouping of sensor nodes, which collect environmental parameters, to a community. Id. The Examiner further finds that Ayyagari teaches rejecting measurements of sensors if the measurements fall outside a specified tolerance range, and, therefore, teaches forming a community based on captured sensor data. See Ans. 10- 1 1. ~1 â€¢ ' 1 ' â€¢ ,.. A. â€¢ 1 â€¢1 ,.. â€¢ ,.. l ne cnea secuons or Ayyagan aescrrne rormmg a group or sensors as part of sensor network, which may have multiple sensor notes collecting data about similar/related environmental parameters. See Ayyagari i-fi-15, 42. A yyagari further describes if the management system determines that the integrity of the data from a given sensor node cannot be established (e.g., because the measurements are beyond the expected range), it can ignore the data received from the problematic node or disables it. Id. at i1 42. Appellants do not provide persuasive argument or explain why the broadest reasonable interpretation of the "form community" limitation is not taught or suggested by Ayyagarri's teaching of disabling an existing sensor from the sensor network based on the captured data, which effectively forms a new community of sensors that excludes the disabled sensor. 4 Appeal2015-003584 Application 12/956,886 For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of: (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 12 and 19, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments made for claim 1 (App. Br. 11 ); and (3) dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20, which are not argued separately. Issue B: Claims 4 and 15 Appellants contend Ayyagari does not teach at least one determination of one or more contexts, as recited in claim 4, because any context in Ayyagari is predetermined and not determined. App. Br. 11-13. We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds the disputed limitation is taught by Ayyagari's description of determining a context based on a mission plan, in which a network controller determines which sensors are active for information gathering. Ans. 12 (citing Ayyagari i-fi-1 57-59). Appellants do not address these specific findings made by the Examiner. Furthermore, Appellants' argument that any context in A yyagari is predetermined is not commensurate with the scope of claim 4, which does not contain any restriction on when the determination is made. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding A yyagari teaches the claimed determination of one or more contexts. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection ofclaim4 and claim 15, argued together with claim 4. Issue C: Claims 9 and 18 Appellants argue the cited references do not teach the "encrypt" limitation recited in claim 9 because A yyagari' s validation of information is not encryption. App. Br. 15-16. We are not persuaded by this argument 5 Appeal2015-003584 Application 12/956,886 because the Examiner relies on Falk, not Ayyagari, to teach encrypting communications (measurement data from sensors). See Ans. 9. Furthermore, we disagree with Appellants' contention (App. Br. 16) that Ayyagari teaches away from encrypting data. To teach away, a reference must actually "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" investigation into the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The section of Ayyagari cited by Appellants does not criticize or discredit encrypting communications, but merely states an advantage of its authentication scheme is that it eliminates the need to perform authentication based on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). See Ayyagari i-f 39. Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 9. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9 and claim 18, argued together with claim 9. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6