AVI KEREN

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2021

2020002445 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 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.
15/368,684 12/05/2016 AVI KEREN 8853-US 1626
69054 7590 08/19/2021
RECHES PATENTS
HaArba''a Towers
North Tower
TEL AVIV, 6473925
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
KAZEMINEZHAD, FARZAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2021 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):
OREN@I-P.CO.IL
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patents@geraghtyipservices.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AVI KEREN
___________

Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–21, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as DSP Group Ltd. Appeal
Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
August 29, 2019); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 31,
2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 27, 2019); and
the Specification (“Spec.,” filed December 5, 2016). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed methods, devices, and computer program products relate
generally to “a growing need to provide an ‘Always on’ device that
consumes very little amount of power in order to save battery life while
being able to continuously listen to a voice trigger, detect a predefined voice
phrase, decode data conveyed over an acoustic beacon and then wake up the
device.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Appellant’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

3

Figure 3 above depicts “an example of a device, a network, a computer and
acoustic beacon devices.” Id. ¶ 27. In particular, Figure 3 depicts device 60,
such as a mobile phone, including microphone 10, chip 20, and application
processor 30. Id. ¶¶ 50–51. When chip 20 detects the presence of acoustic
beacon 101 or 102 via microphone 10, chip 20 may decode a beacon signal
and awaken application processor 30. Id. ¶¶ 56, 61, 66.
As noted above, claims 1–21 are pending. Claims 1, 19, and 21 are
independent. Appeal Br. 15 (claim 1), 17–18 (claims 19 and 21) (Claims
App.). Claims 2–18 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claim 20
depends directly from claim 19. Id. at 15–18.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed elements emphasized, is
representative.
1. A method for sonic acoustic beacon processing, the
method comprises:
constantly operating a microphone and a chip, even when
an application processor is asleep;
receiving by the microphone, while the application
processor is asleep, an acoustic beacon;
converting, by the microphone, the acoustic beacon to
electrical signals representative of the acoustic beacon;
receiving, by the chip, the electrical signals representative
of the acoustic beacon;
searching, by the chip and in the electrical signals
representative of the acoustic beacon for a predefined preamble;
when detecting the predefined preamble then decoding, by
the chip, electrical signals representative of a rest of the acoustic
beacon to provide digital data, and determining by the chip
whether to awake the application processor;
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

4

when determining to awake the application processor then
participating, by the chip, in an awakening of the application
processor; and
sending, by the chip, the digital data to the application
processor, after the awakening of the application processor.
Id. at 15 (emphases added). Each of independent claims 19 and 21 recites
elements corresponding to the disputed elements of claim 1. Id. at 17–18.
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following reference:
Name3 Reference Published Filed
Niewczas US 2016/0204879 A1 July 14, 2016 Jan. 9, 2015
The Examiner rejects claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Niewczas. Final Act. 5–21.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions, respectively, on claim 1; so do we. See Appeal Br. 13; Ans. 14.
Arguments not made are forfeited.4 Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt
the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action and the Answer as our

3 The reference citation is to the first named inventor only.
4 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“We interpret the Patent Office to be arguing that Google’s failure to raise
its lexicography arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of
forfeiture.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018) (“Except as provided for in
§§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”).
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

5

own and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the
rejection below.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Niewczas
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1–21 as anticipated by
Niewczas. Final Act. 5–21. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union
Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged
as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, “it is proper to take
into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Nevertheless,
unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the
thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972). For the reasons given
below, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1–21.
1. Independent Claim 1
Appellant contends that the Examiner fails to show that Niewczas
discloses the recited methods of claim 1 for three reasons. Appeal Br. 8–9.
None of Appellant’s reasons persuades us of Examiner error.
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

6

a. Missing “Application Processor” and “Chip”
First, Appellant contends:
Niewczas teaches of a mobile phone that include one or
more processors (paragraphs [0123] – [0126] and figure 32.
Niewczas merely describes the one or more processors as “The
instructions stored in memory 3210 can be implemented as
software and/or firmware to program the processor(s) 3205 to
carry out actions described above”.
The analysis made by the office in pages 5-7 of the office
action (especially reference to paragraphs [0112], [0043] and
[0046]) is flawed – as these references refer to an application
(not an application processor) that is running on the mobile
device (paragraphs [0043]) or to one or chips of the beacon
device (which differs from the mobile phone – and is the
device that transmits the beacons).
Appeal Br. 9–10 (bolding and underlining added). For the reasons given
below, we disagree with Appellant.
With regard to the recited “application processor,” Appellant reads
Niewczas’s disclosure too narrowly. Niewczas discloses:
FIG. 32 is a block diagram of a computer system as may
be used to implement features of some of the embodiments. The
computing system 3200 may include one or more central
processing units (“processors”) 3205, memory 3210, input/
output devices 3225 (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices,
display devices), storage devices 3220 (e.g., disk drives), and
network adapters 3230 (e.g., network interfaces) that are
connected to an interconnect 3215.
Niewczas ¶ 123 (emphasis added). Further, Niewczas discloses, “[t]he
various embodiments introduced herein can be implemented by, for
example, programmable circuitry (e.g., one or more microprocessors)
programmed with software and/or firmware, or entirely in special-purpose
hardwired (non-programmable) circuitry, or in a combination of such
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

7

forms.” Id. ¶ 126 (emphasis added); see id. ¶ 125 (“The instructions stored
in memory 3210 can be implemented as software and/or firmware to
program the processor(s) 3205 to carry out actions described above.”
(emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner finds, “it is completely incorrect
that in Niewczas . . . an ‘application’ is merely ‘software and/or firmware[.]’
Nowhere in Niewczas it is either expressly and/or inherently an ‘application’
is limited to those characteristics.” Ans. 4; see id. at 5–6 (discussing
inferences a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have drawn
from Niewczas disclosure); see also Preda, 401 F.2d at 826 (quoted above).5
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that Niewczas’s
“applications” may be software, firmware, and/or hardware, or any
combination thereof, and disclose the recited “application processor.”
Ans. 4–6; see Final Act. 3–4.
Similarly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that
Niewczas’s use of multiple processors also discloses the recited “chip.” See
Ans. 8 (citing Niewczas ¶ 46 and finding Niewczas’s “mobile device”
similarly includes “[a] single chip or multiple chips”); see also Preda, 401
F.2d at 826 (discussed above).
As the Examiner finds,
Now it is well known in the art that for even an
“application” which is software, any action on the application or
by the application is conducted by a respective corresponding
processor or chip. Please see Venkatsubramanian et al. (US

5 See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he
absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise
to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and
a need for testimony is not shown.’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v.
Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

8

2002/0147785) ¶ 0004: “Typically, one computer processor is
responsible for executing the applications of the computer
system in which the processor resides. However, there is a trend
toward multiple processors for executing applications.”
Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
Consequently, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error by
this first reason.
b. An Application Activating an “Application”
Second, Appellant contends, “[i]n paragraph [0043] Niewczas merely
states that an application running on a user device may be activated.”
Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant contends Niewczas discloses:
When the user moves closer to the beacon device 130, e.g.,
as depicted in situation 100b, an application running on the user
device 105 may passively receive a beacon message. As an
example, a process running on the user device 105 may notify
the application (e.g., via an interrupt) that a beacon message has
been received. The application may transition from a passive to
an active state and take action locally or cause a remote action
across a network based upon receipt of the message.
Id. (quoting Niewczas ¶ 43 (italics omitted)).
Appellant contends Niewczas discloses, “a first application thread
(executed by the processor and running on top of the operating system)
detected an iBeacon and awakes another application thread (also executed
by the processor and running on top of the operating system).” Id. at 12.
Nevertheless, Appellant relies on disclosure of operations in some, but not
all, of Niewczas’s embodiments. Niewczas ¶¶ 46 (“Accordingly, some
embodiments provide a beacon device design and a protocol” (emphasis
added)), 53 (“The application receiving the authentication values could be
different than the one receiving with the beacon messages (e.g., a first
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

9

application may receive the authentication values and a second, independent
application could obtain the values from the first application via an
Application Programming Interface, etc.” (emphases added)), 58 (“As an
example of the relevant timing considerations” (emphasis added)); see
Appeal Br. 10–11. Thus, we are not persuaded these disclosures distinguish
the methods recited in claim 1 over Niewczas.
Moreover, as Appellant notes, Niewczas discloses:
As an example, a process running on the user device 105 may
notify the application (e.g., via an interrupt) that a beacon
message has been received. The application may transition from
a passive to an active state and take action locally or cause a
remote action across a network based upon receipt of the
message.
Niewczas ¶ 43 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds:
A careful scrutiny of this teaching reveals that: 1) the
“application” prior to the reception of the “beacon message” was
in a “passive” state. This maps one on one to the first limitation,
since “passive” corresponds to the claim’s “asleep”; 2) the
“beacon message” being a “sonic” “beacon” “message” (¶ 0026-
29, 0031-35, and 103), which is received by a “microphone”
(¶ 0112 line 4) causes the “application” to “transition” from the
“passive” (asleep state) to an “active state” (awakened) reads on
the second limitation requiring a message received by a
microphone while the “application” is in a asleep state; 3) the
fact that it causes “transition” to an “active state” maps at least
partially to the seventh limitation requiring “awakening of the
application processor.”
Ans. 5. Thus, we understand the Examiner finds Niewczas discloses a
mobile device, including a microphone and a plurality of processors, in
which, in response the microphone receiving an acoustic beacon, a “process”
may send an “interrupt” to an application. The “process” and the
“application” may run on different components (e.g., processors, disclosing
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

10

the recited “chip” and “application processor”),6 and the “interrupt” may
awaken the “application” on the processor, so that it may receive digital
data. Final Act. 8; see Niewczas ¶¶ 43, 46, 47, 112, 123–126, Fig. 5
(depicting iBeacon™ Detection 510a, Wakeup Process 510b, and Data
Reception 510c).
Consequently, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error by
this second reason.
c. Missing “Determining” Steps
Third, Appellant contends, “[e]ven in the example of paragraph
[005[8]],7 Niewczas fails to teach or suggest determining by the chip
whether to awake the application processor: when determining to awake the
application processor then participating, by the chip, in an awakening of the
application processor.” Appeal Br. 12 (Appellant’s emphasis omitted; our
emphasis added). Appellant asserts the Examiner relies on Niewczas’s
paragraph 46 to disclose,
determining by the chip whether to awake the application
processor (¶ 0046 lines 9-15: “the beacon device successively
transmits a first ‘waking’ beacon message” “and a second ‘data’
Bluetooth” “The first beacon message alerts the application” “the
beacon message’s identity" which according to ¶ 0089 lines 7-9:
“The mobile phone” (the chip) “may confirm” (will determine
whether) “with a network server” “the beacon’s identity” (to
wake the “application” (application processor) if the “beacon”
is “identified]”)).

6 Spec. ¶¶ 59–60 (broadly disclosing examples of “chips” and “application
processors”); see Ans. 4.
7 Although Appellant cites to Niewczas’s paragraph 55, the quoted
paragraph preceding this citation is Niewczas’s paragraph 58, misidentified
as paragraph “55.” Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

11

Id. (quoting Final Act. 8 (Appellant’s emphasis omitted; our emphasis
added)). From this, Appellant concludes:
Once again – in Niewczas there is no chip that determines
whether to awaken an application processor – the first beacon
taught by Niewczas alerts an application that is hosted by an
already operative processor (which executed an operating
system) and once awakened the application (which is still hosted
by the same processor) may perform some actions.
Id. (emphasis added). We disagree with Appellant.
Appellant focuses on the portion of the Examiner’s findings regarding
Niewczas’s paragraph 46, describing the beacon device. Nevertheless, as
discussed above, Niewczas discloses a mobile phone, including a process
run on a processor (e.g., a chip) that may determine, based on the beacon’s
identity, whether to wake a “application” on a processor (e.g., application
processor). Niewczas ¶¶ 43 (“As an example, a process running on the user
device 105 may notify the application (e.g., via an interrupt) that a beacon
message has been received.”), 46 (“A single chip or multiple chips may be
used at the beacon device.” (emphasis added)), 126 (“The various
embodiments introduced herein can be implemented by, for example,
programmable circuitry (e.g., one or more microprocessors) programmed
with software and/or firmware, or entirely in special-purpose hardwired
(non-programmable) circuitry, or in a combination of such forms.”
(emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner finds Niewczas discloses:
(1) “detecting the predefined preamble then decoding, by the chip, electrical
signals representative of a rest of the acoustic beacon to provide digital data”
(Final Act. 7–8 (citing Niewczas ¶¶ 51, 112); see Niewczas, Fig. 3
(preamble 305)); (2) “determining by the chip whether to awake the
application processor” (Final Act. 8 (citing Niewczas ¶¶ 46, 89); see
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

12

Niewczas, Fig. 5 (Wakeup Process 510b)); and (3) “determining to awake
the application processor then participating, by the chip, in an awakening of
the application processor” (Final Act. 8 (citing Niewczas ¶ 43); see
Niewczas, Fig. 5). See Ans. 11–13. We agree with the Examiner.
Consequently, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error by
this third reason.
On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting
independent claim 1 as anticipated by Niewczas, and we sustain that
rejection.
2. Remaining Claims
Further, as noted above, claims 19 and 21 recite elements
corresponding to the disputed elements of claim 1, and Appellant does not
challenge the anticipation rejection of independent claims 19 and 21
separately from claim 1 or of dependent claims 2–18 and 20 separately from
its challenge to their base claims, claims 1 and 19. Appeal Br. 13.
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of independent claims 19 and 21 and
of dependent claims 2–18 and 20. See Ans. 14.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–21 as anticipated by
Niewczas.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–21 are not patentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–21.
Appeal 2020-002445
Application 15/368,684

13

In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 102(a)(2) Niewczas 1–21
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) (2018).
AFFIRMED