OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 2021

2020005331 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021)

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. 15/205,277 07/08/2016 Paul A. Simcik 80496US02(15-217-2) 7527 50791 7590 05/26/2021 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. (UTC) 900 CHAPEL STREET SUITE 1201 NEW HAVEN, CT 06510-2802 EXAMINER WILTEY, NICHOLAS K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 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 PAUL A. SIMCIK ____________ Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–4, 9–17, 21–25, and 27–29.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Otis Elevator Company. Appeal Br. 2. 2 “Claims 5–8, and 18–20 have been cancelled.” Appeal Br. 4. Claim 26 is listed on the Office Action Summary page of the Final Action as being rejected, but is not listed in any rejection in the Detailed Action pages, or otherwise discussed. Thus, we consider claim 26 pending, but with no outstanding rejection. Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 2 We AFFIRM IN PART and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s invention “relates to a passenger conveyance and, more particularly, to a beacon system to facilitate direction of passengers.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and are reproduced below: 1. A wayfinder system, comprising: a plurality of beacons operable to transmit information to a mobile device application, the plurality of beacons operable to provide to the mobile device application a stored distance information between each of the plurality of beacons and the elevator car, wherein the mobile device application is operable to request elevator service that specifies one or more of a departure floor and a destination floor. 12. A method of directing a user via a mobile device application, the method comprising: requesting elevator service from a mobile device application that specifies one or more of a departure floor and a destination floor; receiving information at the mobile device application that relates a position of one or more of a plurality of beacons with respect to an elevator car; calculating a position of the mobile device application with respect to the elevator car from the information transmitted by the one or more of the plurality of beacons; translating the information transmitted by the one or more of the plurality of beacons and the elevator car to a “walking time” based upon user’s normal walking speed; and Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 3 displaying directions to the elevator car from the position. Appeal Br. 24, 25 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Kappeler et al. (“Kappeler”) US 2014/0231184 A1 Aug. 21, 2014 Niewczas et al. (“Niewczas”) US 2016/0204879 A1 July 14, 2016 Dubernat et al. (“Dubernat”) US 2016/0249173 A1 Aug. 25, 2016 Gerstenmeyer et al. (“Gerstenmeyer”) US 2018/0237257 A1 Aug. 23, 2018 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–4, 9–14, 16, 17, 21, and 27–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dubernat and Kappeler. II. Claims 15, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dubernat, Kappeler, and Niewczas. III. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dubernat, Kappeler, and Gerstenmeyer. OPINION New Ground of Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), dependent claims 9–11 are hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite because the scope and meaning of the limitations of the claims cannot be determined. The text of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) requires “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the [Appellant] regards as the invention.” “As the statutory language of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates, Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 4 claims are required to be cast in clear — as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite — terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in original). Thus, the test for determining the question of indefiniteness may be formulated as whether the claims “set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). Claims 9 and 10 recite “[t]he system as recited in claim 8. . . .” However, claim 8 has been cancelled. Therefore, they are indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not ascertain without considerable speculation whether the claims depend from 1 or some other claim, i.e., the scope and meaning of the claims. Claim 11 is indefinite as being dependent from indefinite claim 10. Rejection I Claims 1–4 and 21 The Examiner finds that Dubernat teaches the system of independent claim 1 comprising a plurality of beacons operable to transmit information and provide a stored distance information to a mobile device application, wherein the application is operable to provide elevator service. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Dubernat ¶¶ 40, 46, 48, Fig. 10). Finding that “Dubernat does not explicitly disclose requesting an elevator,” the Examiner relies on Kappeler to teach using a mobile device application to make such a request. Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 4. The Appellant argues: (1) “Dubernat uses a relatively conventional signal strength from each of the beacons to determine the distance between the beacon and the user, not the destination (e.g., elevator car) as recited and claimed by Appellant” (Appeal Br. 10); (2) “Dubernat simply does not Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 5 request elevator service as recited and claimed by Appellant” (id. at 12); (3) “even if properly combined, Kappeler fails to correct the Examiner’s admitted deficiencies of Dubernat” (id. at 14); (4) “[t]he beacons, again, do not include stored distance information between each of the plurality of beacons and the elevator car as recited and claimed by Appellant” (Reply Br. 1); see also Appeal Br. 10; (5) “Dubernat only refers to an elevator in passing” (Reply Br. 3); and (6) “the overall operation of Dubernat is distinguished from Appellant’s disclosed and claimed wayfinder system” (id.). These arguments are unpersuasive of error. As an initial matter, we construe claim 1. Claims are construed in light of the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”)). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim 1 recites a system, i.e., an apparatus, comprising a plurality of beacons. The beacons are the only structural elements of the claimed system. The beacons are further limited by their operability. For example, the beacons are operable to transmit and provide information, such as stored distance information, to an application of a mobile device. The Specification, including the claim, does not define the term “beacon.” A mobile device is not claimed as part of claim 1’s system. At best, a “mobile device application” – i.e., an application on a mobile device – is referenced Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 6 in claim 1 to limit the operability of the beacons. The application is not a structural element itself, but is merely software. Although the application “is operable” to perform a function of requesting elevator service, the application is not recited as containing instructions or causing the device to perform that particular function. More importantly, the application is not a component of claim 1’s system. Further, the claim does not recite that the beacons themselves store distance information, but rather that they transmit information and provide stored information. As to the type of information transmitted, i.e., “information” and “stored distance information,” there is insufficient evidence on the record showing a functional relationship between the information and the system claimed. Claim 1 merely recites the operability of the beacons to transmit and provide such information; there is nothing claimed regarding the origin of the information nor is there anything regarding the use of such information, such as determining a distance. Absent such evidence of a functional relationship, it is reasonable to characterize the type of information communicated to be transmitted as descriptive, falling under the category of patentably-inconsequential subject matter. See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative). “Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious.” Id. at 1274 (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). See Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 7 also In re Xiao, 462 F. App’x 947, 950–52 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non- precedential): [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)). Xiao, 462 F. App’x at 951–52. “Thus non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight.” Ex parte Graff, Appeal 2012-003941, 2013 WL 3873066, at *4 (PTAB July 23, 2013) (non-precedential), aff’d, In re Graff, 585 F. App’x 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential). “The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, the beacons claimed reasonably broadly cover any beacon operable to transmit and provide information to a mobile device application. Here, Dubernat discloses a “[m]ethod, device and system for navigating a site on which beacons are located, the method including traveling from beacon to beacon to reach a destination without requiring a plan to scale of the site.” Dubernat Abstract. The navigation device can be a “smart phone” and includes a Central Processing Unit (“CPU”) connected to a memory unit over a data bus, the memory unit holding a program element executed by the CPU, as well as a user interface, a signal detector, Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 8 and a compass connected to the data bus and a network interface such as a Wi-Fi interface that communicates with the CPU and/or the memory unit through the bus. Id. ¶¶ 25, 50. The beacons are programmed to emit signals and broadcast an identifier identifying each beacon, whereupon the signals are detected and characterized by the navigation device’s signal detector. See id. ¶¶ 25, 27, 32. “The signal includes information allowing identification of the specific beacon 26 to 44 that emits the signal.” Id. ¶ 22. An orientation table stores the information necessary to navigate a user to destinations from the beacon, including information regarding distance to access points such as elevators, and the information is presented to the user. Id. ¶¶ 40, 46. The navigation device scans for detectable beacons using the signal detector and associates each detected beacon’s identifier with an estimated distance. Id. ¶ 49. As such, Dubernat teaches the plurality of beacons of claim 1, which are programmed to transmit and provide information to an application. Any difference between the system of claim 1 and that of Dubernat is in the type of information transmitted, i.e., a distance between the beacon and an elevator car. But a difference in the type of information is a difference in nonfunctional descriptive material and, as such, is not one that is patentably consequential. As to the claim’s recitations of an elevator car and elevator service, these too are types of information that limit the mobile device application, rather than the plurality of beacons. These recitations do not differentiate the claimed system comprising a plurality of beacons operable to transmit and provide information from Dubernat’s system comprising a plurality of beacons operable to transmit and provide information. Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 9 Even if we were to view the operation(s) of the mobile device application and the type of information requested as meaningful to the system claimed, we find supported the Examiner’s findings that Dubernat teaches a plurality of beacons operable to provide stored distance information to a device and that Kappeler teaches a mobile device application operable to request elevator service. See Kappeler ¶¶ 42, 43. That Kappeler uses a different way of requesting service than envisioned by the Appellant (see Appeal Br. 13–14) is not relevant as the claim does not recite structure for a particular way of requesting. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–4 and 21, for which the Appellant does not provide separate argument. Claims 9–11 Because we determine, as discussed above, that the subject matter of claims 9–11 is indefinite, we are unable to determine the propriety of the Examiner’s rejection under this ground of claims 9–11. The review of the rejection of these claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 would require considerable speculation as to the scope and meaning of the claims. Such speculation would not be appropriate. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). We, therefore, reverse pro forma the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 9–11. We emphasize that this is a technical reversal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and not a reversal based upon the merits of the rejection. Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 10 Claim 27 Dependent claim 27 recites “[t]he system as recited in claim 1, wherein the mobile device application translates the stored distance information between each of the plurality of beacons and the elevator car to a ‘walking time’ based upon user’s normal walking speed.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). This limitation relates to the mobile device application referenced in claim 1 solely to further define the operability of the plurality of beacons. As discussed above, the mobile device application is not a component of claim 1’s system. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 pertaining to the mobile device application, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection by the Appellant’s arguments that Kappeler does not teach this limitation. See Appeal Br. 20. Further, even if we were to view the operations of the mobile device application as meaningful, Kappeler’s software/application is capable of translating/determining distance information to a walking time. See Kappeler ¶¶ 5, 42, 43. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claim 27. Claims 12 and 16 The Examiner finds that Dubernat teaches the method of independent claim 12 of directing a user via a mobile device application but for requesting an elevator service. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Dubernat ¶¶ 6, 40, 46–51, Fig. 10). The Examiner relies on Kappeler to teach “the requesting of an elevator using a mobile device” (Ans. 8), determining that “[i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . to provide the beacon navigation system as disclosed by Dubernat with the elevator Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 11 destination, routing, and calling as taught by Kappeler in order to navigate indoors effectively” (Final Act. 6). Independent claim 12 differs from claim 1 and recites a method comprising requesting information from a mobile device application, receiving information at the application, calculating a position from the information transmitted by beacon(s), translating that information to a walking time, and displaying directions. See Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The claim does not recite what apparatus performs the calculating, translating, or displaying steps, nor does the claim recite the functions of the beacons as recited in claim 1. As such, we do not understand the Appellant’s arguments presented on pages 10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief regarding the stored distance information, using a conventional signal strength to determine the distance between the beacon and elevator car, and Kappeler not curing the deficiencies of Dubernat to apply to claim 12. Regarding claim 12, the Appellant argues: Notably, the Examiner does not recite what Dubernat fails to explicitly disclose; however, Appellant respectfully notes that Kappeler does not provide beacons but tags that the user must be adjacent to be physically scanned. Kappeler is [sic] thus requires a user to already find a desired elevator and scan an associated tag to receive directions. Kappeler does not thus correct the admitted deficiencies of Dubernat and is simply not a method of directing a user via a mobile device application which displays directions to an elevator car from the user’s position as recited and claimed by Appellant. Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 3–4 (“Appellant respectfully submits that Dubernat simply operates in a different manner that fails to disclose or suggest Appellant’s system.”). These arguments are unpersuasive of error. Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 12 First, we disagree that the Examiner does not recite what Dubernat fails to teach. Rather, the Examiner states “Dubernat fails to explicitly disclose . . . a wayfinder system wherein the mobile device application is operable to request elevator service.” Final Act. 6; Ans. 8. Second, the Examiner does not rely on Kappeler for teaching the use of beacons for transmitting information, as claimed, but only for a mobile device application requesting elevator service. Final Act. 6; Ans. 8. The Examiner relies on Dubernat for teaching the beacons transmitting information. Id. As discussed above with reference to claim 1, this finding is supported. Third, claim 12 does not recite a particular way of requesting service, but merely claims “requesting elevator service from a mobile application device.” As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner’s finding that Kappeler teaches requesting elevator service from a mobile application device is supported. Finally, the Appellant’s argument that Kappeler “is simply not a method of directing a user via a mobile device application which displays directions to an elevator car from the user’s position as recited and claimed by Appellant” (Appeal Br. 16) is an argument against Kappeler individually when the Examiner relies on the combination of Dubernat and Kappeler for teaching the claimed method as a whole. The test for obviousness is not what any one reference would have suggested, but rather what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Id. (citation Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 13 omitted). The Appellant provides no argument or technical reasoning why the Examiner’s specific findings and/or articulated reasoning are in error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 12 and dependent claim 16, for which the Appellant does not provide separate argument. Claims 13 and 14 Dependent claim 13 recites “[t]he method as recited in claim 12, further comprising receiving information from a plurality of beacons, information from each of the plurality of beacons relates a position of the respective beacon with respect to the elevator car.” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). Dependent claim 14 recites “[t]he method as recited in claim 12, further comprising determining a position of the mobile device with respect to the elevator car from the information transmitted by the beacon.” Id. The Examiner finds that Dubernat teaches these limitations in that Dubernat’s “beacons 26-44 transmit information to the navigation device (an application on a smart phone) and the beacons further transmit distance on a location plan relative to the beacons 26-44, the access points of which beacons 26-44 are placed are [sic] for example elevators).” Final Act. 8 (citing Dubernat ¶¶ 46, 48, 50, 51). For claim 13, the Appellant cites the Examiner’s rejection, quotes paragraphs 46, 48, 50, and 51 of Dubernat, and states “Dubernat only mentions an elevator in passing as an access point and simply provides no teaching that information which relates a position of the respective beacon with respect to the elevator car.” Appeal Br. 17–19. For claim 14, the Appellant argues “[a]gain, Dubernat simply does not provide this Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 14 information as discussed above.” Id. at 20. The Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of error. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Dubernat teaches receiving information from a plurality of beacons, the information comprising beacon identification information that is then used to determine and display a distance between the beacon and an access point such as an elevator. See Dubernat ¶¶ 22, 25, 27, 32, 40 (storing information regarding distance to an access point such as an elevator), 46 (“a schematic or exact plan of the location surrounding the beacon 26 to 44 selected is displayed with the beacon 26 to 44 selected at the center of the display, and access points roughly or exactly where they are in space, in orientation and/or distance on the plan relative to the beacon 26 to 44”). We further find unpersuasive of error the Appellant’s argument that the general operation of a beacon (as compared to a tag that needs to be scanned) is fundamentally different as Dubernat uses a relatively conventional signal strength from each of the beacons to determine the distance between the beacon and the user, not the destination (e.g., the “access point”) as recited and claimed by Appellant. Appeal Br. 19. The claims do not require a specific signal strength, and Dubernat teaches using information received from beacons to determine the distance claimed. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claims 13 and 14. Claims 17, 28, and 29 Dependent claim 17 recites “[t]he method as recited in claim 16, further comprising timing a service request such that the elevator car will arrive when a user of the mobile device arrives at the elevator car.” Appeal Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 15 Br. 26 (Claims App.). Dependent claim 28 recites “[t]he method as recited in claim 12, further comprising translating stored distance information between each of the plurality of beacons and the elevator car to a ‘walking time’ based upon user’s normal walking speed.” Id. at 28. The Examiner finds that Dubernat fails to teach these limitations and relies on Kappeler for curing these deficiencies. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Kappeler ¶¶ 5, 43). The Examiner determines “[i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . to provide the beacon navigation system as disclosed by Dubernat with the elevator destination, routing, and calling as taught by Kappeler in order to navigate indoors effectively.” Id. Regarding claim 17, the Appellant argues: Here again, Appellant respectfully submits that the wayfinder system described and claimed by Appellant is a unique integrated system which times the movement of the user so as to arrive at an elevator car simultaneous with the elevator car arrival. Again, Kappeler requires scanning of a tag adjacent to an elevator car, not the movement to an elevator car for simultaneous arrival. Appeal Br. 20. Regarding claim 28, the Appellant argues “[s]uch relationship [between the beacons and elevator] is simply not disclosed or suggested by the cited references. Again, Kappeler requires scanning a tag adjacent to the elevator car and is based specifically on the walking time from the location of the tag to the entrance of the elevator.” Id. However, these are arguments against Kappeler individually when the Examiner relies on the combination of Dubernat and Kappeler for teaching the claimed method as a whole. The Examiner relies on Dubernat for teaching the method comprising receiving and using information from beacons to determine and display a distance between a beacon and an elevator and to direct a user to a specific point such as an elevator. See Final Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 16 Act. 4–6, 9. Further, the Examiner’s rejection is not based on a bodily incorporation of Kappeler’s user guidance system and method (see Kappeler Abstract) into Dubernat’s system and method for navigating a site (see Dubernat Abstract). See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teaching of [those] references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). As discussed above with respect to claims 12, 13, and 14, the Examiner’s findings regarding Dubernat are supported. The Examiner relies on Kappeler for teaching using received information for timing a service request as claimed. This finding is also supported. See Kappeler ¶¶ 5 (“The method can also comprise setting an elevator car arrival time based at least in part on the location information”), 43 (describing determining a call assignment for an elevator based on when the elevator should arrive, the distance between a tag and elevator, and average walking speed). The Appellant argues that Kappeler’s method works differently in receiving information from a tag as opposed to a beacon, but provides no argument or technical reasoning why the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Kappeler’s use of information for timing a service request and/or the articulated reasoning are in error. And, the claims do not recite a specific way for timing a service request or for translating the information to a walking time. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claims 17 and 28. We also sustain the rejection of claim 29 that Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 17 depends from claim 28, for which the Appellant does not provide separate argument. Rejection II The Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, which depends from claim 12, and claims 24 and 25, which depend from claim 1, is in error “for at least the reasons discussed above” (Appeal Br. 21) is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 12 and 1. The Appellant further argues “[t]here is simply no motivation to incorporate triangulation into the system of Dubernat as Dubernat utilizes signal strength with the user and Kappeler requires scanning of tags,” because “there is simply no benefit to make the combination as proposed by the Examiner.” Id. The Examiner finds “Dubernat fails to explicitly disclose ‘triangulating’ a position of the mobile device with respect to the elevator car from the information transmitted by a plurality of beacons each of the plurality of beacons separately identifiable by the mobile device application.” Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner relies on Niewczas for curing this deficiency (id. at 11 (citing Niewczas ¶ 65); see also Ans. 10) and determines: Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . to provide the navigation by beacons as disclosed by Dubernat with the triangulation as taught by Niewczas in order to accurately ensure the position of the beacon is in the correct location which ultimately leads to increased accuracy for navigation since the positions of the beacons are more accurately determined. Ans. 10–11; see also Final Act. 11. Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 18 The Examiner explains a purported benefit to incorporate Niewczas’s beacon device triangulation into Dubernat’s system of beacons. Outside of arguing that there is no benefit, the Appellant does not provide evidence or technical reasoning why the Examiner’s reasoning that presents a benefit of accurate navigation is incorrect or otherwise in error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 15, 24, and 25. Rejection III The Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23 is in error “for at least the reasons discussed above” (Appeal Br. 21) is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. We note that dependent claims 22 and 23 further relate to the mobile device application that is not a component of the system of claim 1. Thus, for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 pertaining to the mobile device application, information of a request, and recitation of an elevator car, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection by the Appellant’s arguments that the combination of the prior does not teach the limitations of claims 22 and 23. See Appeal Br. 11. We further note that the Appellant’s argument that the Examiner relies on hindsight reasoning (Appeal Br. 22) is unpersuasive of error because the Appellant does not provide sufficient argument, details, or technical reasoning why the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is ineffective to support the conclusion of obviousness. Here, the Examiner articulates reasons why it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gerstenmeyer with Dubernat, i.e., to “lead to a reduced wait time for passengers as well as prevent overloading, which ultimately leads to a more Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 19 efficient and safe use of all the elevators within a building.” Ans. 11; see also Final Act. 12. The Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence or technical reasoning why the Examiner’s reasons are in error, are gleaned only from the Appellant’s disclosure, or are otherwise ineffective to support the conclusion of obviousness. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 22 and 23. New Ground of Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 103 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), dependent claim 26 is hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dubernat and Kappeler. Dependent claim 26 recites “[t]he system as recited in claim 1, wherein the mobile device application stores layout data of a building within which the plurality of beacons are contained.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). Claim 26 relates to the mobile device application that, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, is solely referenced in claim 1 to further define the operability of the plurality of beacons. The mobile device application is not a component of claim 1’s system. Even if we were to consider the operations of the mobile device application as meaningful, Dubernat teaches the mobile navigation device is operable to store the orientation table comprising information of a layout of where the beacons are located. See Dubernat ¶¶ 31–34, 38. Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 20 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 12–17, 21–25, and 27–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed, pro forma. We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dubernat and Kappeler. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–4, 9–14, 16, 17, 21, 27–29 103 Dubernat, Kappeler 1–4, 12–14, 16, 17, 21, 27–29 9–11 15, 24, 25 103 Dubernat, Kappeler, Niewczas 15, 24, 25 22, 23 103 Dubernat, Kappeler, Gerstenmeyer 22, 23 9–11 112(b) Indefiniteness 9–11 26 103 Dubernat, Kappeler 26 Overall Outcome 1–4, 12–17, 21–25, 27–29 9–11 9–11, 26 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of Appeal 2020-005331 Application 15/205,277 21 rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01 (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED IN PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)