FELICA NETWORKS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021000924 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 15/122,268 08/29/2016 Keitarou WATANABE 1946-0901 5963 60803 7590 03/30/2022 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 EXAMINER LANE, GREGORY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2438 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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 KEITAROU WATANABE and YU HAMADA ____________ Appeal 2021-000924 Application 15/122,268 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-11, 13-20, and 22-27. Claims 12 and 21 are withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies FeliCa Networks, Inc. as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2021-000924 Application 15/122,268 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to enabling access from access sources to be exclusively controlled when a communication environment is based on a standard in which one-to-one communication is assumed. (Abstr.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. An information processing device comprising: a generation unit configured to generate first identification information associated with communication data transmitted to an external device, and transmit the first identification information to the external device; an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the external device, second identification information generated by the external device by randomizing the first identification information transmitted by the information processing device; and a control unit configured to set, based on a comparison between identification information included in communication data transmitted from the external device and the second identification information being stored in the information processing device, only communication data associated with the acquired second identification information out of the communication data transmitted from the external device as a processing target exclusively, wherein the generation unit, the acquisition unit, and the control unit are each implemented via at least one processor. (Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).) Appeal 2021-000924 Application 15/122,268 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, 14, 18-20, and 22-25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takechi (US 2007/0255784 A1, pub. Nov. 1, 2007), and Oliveira (US 2007/0014413 A1, pub. Jan. 18, 2007). (Final Act. 3-17.) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 11, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takechi, Oliveira, and Fok (WO 2008/70686 A2, pub. June 12, 2008). (Final Act. 17-22.) The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takechi, Oliveira, and Imamoto (US 2006/0143453 A1, pub. June 29, 2006). (Final Act. 22-23.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments present the following issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Takechi and Oliveira would have taught or suggested the independent claim 1 limitations: a generation unit configured to generate first identification information associated with communication data transmitted to an external device, and transmit the first identification information to the external device; an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the external device, second identification information generated by 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 8, 2020) (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 16, 2020) (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 4, 2020) (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 16, 2020) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. Appeal 2021-000924 Application 15/122,268 4 the external device by randomizing the first identification information transmitted by the information processing device and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 19 and 22-25. (Appeal Br. 16-20.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt as our own: (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-23); and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 3-7.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following. For the aforementioned claim requirements, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Oliveira of delivering policy updates with protected content in which a receiver sends a registration request message, and a transmitter responds with a “random session ID.” (Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 5 (citing Oliveira Fig. 2, ¶¶ 26, 29.) Then the receiver and transmitter undergo a proximity detection process in which the receiver sends the session ID to the transmitter, and the transmitter responds with the session ID and a “Nonce,” which is a 128-bit random number. (Id.) In its opening brief, Appellant argues: [A]lthough Oliveira discloses that a receiver transmits a session ID to a transmitter (See paragraph [0029] and Fig. 2 of Oliveira) and the transmitter transmits a random session ID to the receiver ( See paragraph [0026] and Fig. 1 of Oliveira), such Appeal 2021-000924 Application 15/122,268 5 random session ID transmitted by the transmitter is transmitted for registration and is completely unrelated to the session ID transmitted by the receiver for proximity detection. (Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis omitted).) However, the registration and proximity detection operations of Oliveira use the same session ID throughout the process, as shown on Figures 1 and 2, and described in paragraphs 26 and 29 of Oliveira. Therefore, Appellant’s argument in its opening brief is unpersuasive. In its Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on the transmitter’s response consisting of the session ID and a random value “Nonce,” is not the required “randomizing the first identification information” (i.e., of the session ID), but is “at best, only that the transmitter sends to the receiver a random value with the Session ID.” (Reply Br. 5, 4.) However, we are not persuaded that, broadly and reasonably construed, the claim requirement would not encompass the sending of a session ID appended with a random number. Moreover, this argument is a new argument that is raised in reply and is deemed waived.3 Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 19 and 22-25 over Takechi and Oliveira. We also sustain the 3 See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”). Appeal 2021-000924 Application 15/122,268 6 obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-10, 14, 18-20, 22-25, and 27 over Takechi and Oliveira, of claims 4, 11, 13, and 15-17 over Takechi, Oliveira, and Fok, and of claim 26 over Takechi, Oliveira, and Imamoto, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Appeal Br. 20-22.) DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5-10, 14, 18-20, 22-25, 27 103 Takechi, Oliveira 1-3, 5-10, 14, 18-20, 22-25, 27 4, 11, 13, 15-17 103 Takechi, Oliveira, Fok 4, 11, 13, 15-17 26 103 Takechi, Oliveira, Imamoto 26 Overall Outcome 1-11, 13-20, 22-27 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). AFFIRMED