Ex Parte Faithorn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13248863 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/248,863 09/29/2011 Nick Faithorn 2875.8530000 7059
49579 7590 02/02/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MILORD, MARCEAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICK FAITHORN
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,8631
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Broadcom Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,863
INVENTION
Appellant’s application relates to single Near Field Communication
(“NFC”) device identity selection on a multiple-identity supported device.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
1. A Near Field Communication (NFC) capable device,
comprising:
a demodulator configured to extract a polling command
from a polling signal received from a second NFC capable
device, the polling command including a characteristic;
a memory configured to store a list of a plurality of NFC
targets; and
a processor configured to search the list to select a
corresponding NFC target, from among the plurality of NFC
targets, that matches the characteristic included in the polling
command.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 12—18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Symons2 (US 8,233,842
B2; issued July 31, 2012) and Buhot (US 2012/0309302 Al; published Dec.
6, 2012).
Claims 3—11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Symons, Buhot, and Griffin et al. (US
8,233,841 B2; issued July 31, 2012) (“Griffin”).
2 In the Final Action, the Examiner refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,233,842 as
“Simmons.”
2
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,863
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Symons teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except “a memory configured to store
a list of a plurality of NFC targets” and “a processor configured to search the
list to select a corresponding NFC target, from among the plurality of NFC
targets, that matches the characteristic included in the polling command,” for
which the Examiner relied on Buhot. Final Act. 2—5.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the cited portions of
Symons do not disclose the limitation “a polling command,” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding with
regard to this limitation amounts to “mere speculation without any support in
Symons.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred. The
Examiner found in the Answer that Buhot teaches that a NFC
communication section detects NFC target devices by activating a detection
loop based on a scanning or polling mechanism. Ans. 9 (citing Buhot || 36,
3
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,863
88). In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not address or persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s findings.
Appellant next contends neither Symons nor Buhot teaches or
suggests a controller configured to “search the list in its memory for a match
to the identifying type obtained from the polling command” or to “select the
first NFC identity in the list that corresponds to the polling command,” as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8. Appellant argues that Buhot discloses
selecting an “application element” by a user before communicating with any
other NFC devices or targets. Id. at 9 (citing Buhot | 61).
We are not persuaded of error because Appellant has not fully
addressed the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner explained the process by
which an activated reader application element may communicate with one or
more detected NFC target devices. Ans. 11 (citing Buhot Figs. 2, 3; Tflf 51—
52, 55—57, 61—62, 64—65, 79, 82—84, 88). Although Appellant has addressed
the Examiner’s findings based on paragraphs 51—52 and 61—62 of Buhot,
Appellant has not addressed or persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
findings based on the other cited paragraphs. See Reply Br. 3—5. In short,
Appellant’s argument that “the user of Buhot selects the ‘application
element’ before its detection loop is activated” (App. Br. 9 (emphasis
omitted)) does not persuade us that Buhot in combination with Symons fails
to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1. We agree with the
Examiner that at least paragraphs 64 and 82—84 of Buhot teach or suggest
storing a list of a plurality of NFC targets and searching the list to select an
NFC target that matches a characteristic included in the polling command.
See Ans. 11; Buhot || 64, 81—84.
4
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,863
Appellant next contends the Examiner has not provided a sufficiently
articulated reason explaining why a skilled artisan would combine the
teachings of Symons and Buhot to arrive at the claimed invention. App. Br.
10. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention because the Examiner
has provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” specifically, “to provide a
method for providing communication between a wireless communication
device capable of providing a near field communication service and at least
one near field communication target device.” Final Act. 5; see KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417—18 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 14, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar
reasons. App. Br. 12. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2, 13, and 20, for which Appellant makes no additional
arguments. Id.
Rejection of Claims 12, 15—17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown that the combination
of Symons and Buhot teaches or suggests limitations recited in dependent
claims 12, 15—17, 21, and 22. App. Br. 13.
Appellant first argues that the Examiner has not shown that Symons
and Buhot teach or suggest the limitation “the characteristic [being] from
among a plurality of characteristics” and the “processor [being] further
configured to search the list to select the corresponding NFC target that
5
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,863
matches a second characteristic from among the plurality of characteristics,”
recited in claim 12 and similarly recited in claims 21 and 22. Id.
We disagree. The Examiner found that the NFC device in Buhot “can
search for the first identity in the list (compare with the register target
listener) that contains all of the specified characteristics.” Ans. 12 (citing
Buhot || 83—84). Given this teaching, we are not persuaded that an artisan
of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to search the list to select
the corresponding NFC target that matches a second characteristic from
among the plurality of characteristics, as claims 12, 21, and 22 require.
Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 12,
21, and 22.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner has not shown that Symons
and Buhot teach or suggest the limitation “the characteristic comprises: a
format of the polling command,” recited in claim 16. App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner found that the detected NFC
target device identification information in Buhot may include: “application
data, the RF type of the detected NFC target device which defines the RF
modulation and are typically standardized (Type A, Type B, Type F: read as
a pluralities of identities associated with the NFC device; paragraph 0063-
0064).” Ans. 11. We note Appellant’s Specification describes that
conventional polling procedure contemplates using a Type A standard, a
Type B standard, and a Type F (FeliCa) standard. Spec. 124. Thus, we are
not persuaded that an artisan of ordinary skill would not have found the
additional limitation of claim 16 obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 16.
6
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,863
We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims
15 and 17, for which Appellant makes no separate substantive arguments.
See App. Br. 13—14. The Examiner explained that the claims were grouped
together because they are similar in scope and, therefore, have been
addressed and rejected under a similar rationale. Ans. 13.
Rejection of Claims 3—8, 10, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends the Examiner has not provided a sufficiently
articulated reason explaining why a skilled artisan would combine the
teachings of Griffin with those of Symons and Buhot to arrive at the
invention of claims 3—8, 10, 11, and 19. App. Br. 14. We are not persuaded
by Appellant’s contention because the Examiner has provided “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness,” specifically, “to provide a method for enabling
a peer to peer financial transaction between mobile devices using near field
communication in a network environment.” Final Act. 8; see KSR, 550 U.S.
at 417-18.
Appellant further contends the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of Symons, Buhot, and Griffin teaches or suggests the
limitations in dependent claims 4—11 and 19. App. Br. 15.
Appellant first contends the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of Symons, Buhot, and Griffin teaches or suggests the
limitation “characteristic comprises: a format of the polling command,”
recited in dependent claim 4. App. Br. 15. For the reasons discussed above
7
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,863
with regard to claim 16, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4.
Appellant also contends the Examiner has not shown that Symons and
Buhot teach or suggest the limitation “a financial restriction to prevent. . .
based on a user-defined amount,” recited in claim 19. App. Br. 13. The
Examiner, however, relied on Griffin as teaching the disputed limitation.
Final Act. 8 (citing Griffin Figs. 5—6; col. 3:10-24; col. 5:37—59; col. 5:60-
col. 6:18; col. 7: 23—53). Because Appellant has not persuasively rebutted
the Examiner’s findings, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 19.
We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims
5—8, 10, and 11, for which Appellant makes no separate, substantive
arguments. See App. Br. 13—14. The Examiner explained the claims were
grouped together because they are similar in scope and, therefore, have been
addressed and rejected under a similar rationale. Ans. 15.
Rejection of Claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 18 depends from claim 14 and further recites the limitation
“wherein the characteristic comprises: a restriction to prevent one of the
plurality of NFC targets from being selected depending on a time of day or a
Global Positioning System (GPS) location.” App. Br. 21. Appellant
contends the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Symons and
Buhot teaches or suggests the limitation recited in claim 18. App. Br. 13.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites the same additional limitation as
claim 18. Id. at 19.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not cited sufficient
support in the prior art references for the teaching of the limitation recited in
8
Appeal 2016-000891
Application 13/248,863
claims 9 and 18. In the Final Action, the Examiner addressed claim 18 with
claims 14—17, but made no specific findings with regard to the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 5. Even after Appellant raised the issue on appeal,
the Examiner failed specifically to address the disputed limitation in the
Answer. See Ans. 13. Similarly, the Examiner did not specifically address
the limitation recited in claim 9. See Final Act. 8.
For these reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 as obvious over the combination of
Symons, Buhot, and Griffin, and in rejecting claim 18 as obvious over the
combination of Symons and Buhot.
Accordingly, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 9
and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—8, 10—17,
and 19-22.
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 9 and 18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9