Ex Parte Hallowell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201613050622 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/050,622 03/17/2011 Scott Hallowell 29855 7590 06/01/2016 Blank Rome LLP 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. 199-0780US 2973 EXAMINER 717 Texas A venue, Suite 1400 JUSTUS, RALPH H Houston, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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): houstonpatents@blankrome.com mbrininger@blankrome.com smcdermott@blankrome.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT HALLOWELL, CHRIS DURAND, and JOHN BAHR Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-27. Claims 2 and 7 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention "relates generally to communication systems, and more particularly to managing Bluetooth devices" (Spec. i-f 1 ). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for managing Bluetooth (BT) communications at a first BT device, the first BT device configured to communicate with a second BT device, the first BT device and the second BT device not having been paired, the method compnsmg: identifying the second BT device; accessing virtual BT parameters associated with the identified second BT device; and using the virtual BT parameters to begin BT communication with the identified second BT device as an already paired device, wherein the virtual BT parameters include a first virtual BT device address and a first secret key, and wherein the first BT device adopts the first virtual BT device address as its own BT device address in communications with the second BT device. 2 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Rautiola et al. Moloney et al. Ullah US 2005/0064896 Al US 2005/0266798 Al US 2008/0108308 Al Miyabayashi et al. US 2009/0227282 Al Liu US 2010/0069115 Al Brown et al. US 2011/0081860 Al Mar. 24, 2005 Dec. 1, 2005 May 8, 2008 Sep. 10,2009 Mar. 18, 2010 Apr. 7, 2011 Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11-13, 20, 21, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Moloney and Rautiola. 1 Claims 4, 9, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Moloney, Rautio la, and Liu. Claims 5, 10, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Moloney, Rautio la, and Brown. Claims 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Moloney and Liu. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Moloney, Rautio la, and Miyabayashi. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Moloney, Rautiola, and Ullah. II. ISSUES The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding that: 1 The rejection of claims 4, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn (Ans. 16). 3 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 1) the combination of Moloney and Rautio la teaches or would have suggested a "first BT device" and a "second BT device not having been paired," accessing "virtual BT parameters associated with the identified second BT device," and using the virtual BT parameters "to begin BT communication with the identified second BT device as an already paired device" (claim 1, emphasis added); and 2) the combination of Moloney and Liu teaches or would have suggested "an administrator server separate from the first BT device and the plurality of second BT devices" (claim 14, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Moloney 1. Moloney discloses secure Bluetooth communication in which an "identifier of a first device is received at a second device" (Abstr.) "to establish an initial wireless proximity connection" (i-f 16). A contact name associated with a contact entry corresponding to the identifier is presented to a user of the second device (i-f 27). If authorized by the user, an "authorization identifier is associated with the contact entry ... and a wireless proximity connection is established ... in response" (id.). Establishing subsequent Bluetooth connections after the initial association of the authorization identifier at the second device includes generating, transmitting, and storing a "Bluetooth link key" (i-f 28) in order to facilitate automatic connection re-establishment (Abstr., i-f 14). 2. Authorization may be created as a Bluetooth link key or, "[i]n another embodiment, the user of the communication device can provide the 4 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 authorization identifier, such as by entering a personal identification number (PIN)" (i-f 24). "For Bluetooth, pairing is the process of specifying a secret PIN that is shared between two or more devices and is used to establish a secure connection between the two devices" (i-f 8). "[T]he PIN security association for the matching entry is checked to be valid. The PIN may not be valid because pairing with the remote device has never been performed" (i-f 77). Rautio la 3. Rautio la discloses Bluetooth communication between a mobile station 131 and a user terminal 13 7, 13 8 (i-fi-f l 06, 110). When the mobile station 131 is in a wireless intranet office environment, "its functionality is transferred to the PBU [personal base unit] 132," which "then comprises a virtual mobile station 139" (i-f 111 ). "As a consequence, the user terminal 137, 138 can communicate directly with [t]he PBU 132, thereby eliminating the need for the mobile station to remain turned on" (id.). The virtual mobile station 139 "emulates the functioning of the actual mobile station" (i-f 115). The user terminal and PBU may communicate via Bluetooth (i-f 28, 114). Liu 4. Liu discloses a mobile device 10 (i-f 9) having Bluetooth capability (i-f 20) in which applications are controlled by accessing data from an external server 146 (i-fi-f 21-22). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6, 15, and 25 Appellants contend Moloney fails to disclose "the first BT device and the second BT device not having been paired" as claimed because pairing 5 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 occurs during the initial wireless proximity connection and creation of a security association in Moloney (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants further contend neither Moloney nor Rautiola disclose "virtual BT parameters" as claimed (id. at 18-20). We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings, and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings. We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). Although Appellants contend "Moloney only allows communication between the two devices after they have been paired, either by exchanging a link key in one embodiment or a PIN in a second embodiment" (Reply Br. 5) and that the "prior association [of Moloney] is pairing" (App. Br. 12), we find no error in the Examiner's reliance on Moloney for disclosing or suggesting "the first BT device and the second BT device not having been paired" as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 6). We do not find the Examiner's interpretation of "pairing" as encompassing Moloney's generation of a Bluetooth link key or use of PIN security association (Final Act. 6; Ans. 17) to be overly broad or unreasonable. We agree with the Examiner that "Moloney provides an 6 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 'initial association,' after which pairing of Bluetooth connections is established between devices" (Ans. 17, emphasis added; FF 1-2). In particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Moloney discloses the devices "not having been paired" during the "initial association" or "initial steps" (emphasis added), and that "the devices [sic] identifiers and addresses of the initial association are used to generate the link key that permits subsequent pairing ... whereupon the devices then become 'paired'" (id.). We note Moloney's disclosure that a "PIN may not be valid because pairing with the remote device has never been performed" (FF 2, emphasis added). Although Appellants contend "claims 1, 6, 15 and 25 specifically require that the devices are not paired" (App. Br. 12), we note this argument is not commensurate in scope with the recited claim language. In particular, independent claim 1 does not require that the first and second BT devices are not paired, but rather that they are "not having been paired" (emphasis added) at a point of "the first BT device [being] configured to communicate with a second BT device" (see claim 1 ). Claims 1, 6, 15, and 20 Appellants then contend "Moloney has no teaching or suggestion, and then no need of, a separate server containing access data or virtual BT parameters" (App. Br. 22). Appellants concede Moloney's "[p]aragraph [O 108] does mention BT parameters," but contend it "is not sufficient to teach the use of virtual BT parameters on unpaired devices as claimed" (App. Br. 19). Specifically, Appellants contend "none of them [Moloney' s BT parameters] are virtual parameters" because "[a]ll are developed between the two devices of Moloney ... or are the actual, physical Bluetooth 7 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 addresses and the like. None of the items are virtual values adopted or used by either device" (Reply Br. 7). Furthermore, Appellants contend "there is no indication in Rautiola that virtual BT parameters are used in any BT communications or that the personal base unit (PBU) 132 has not been paired" (App. Br. 19). In particular, Appellants contend "Rautio la has no actual description of the Bluetooth link ... other than its mere existence" and there "is no description in Rautiola about the PBU 132 or the vMS 139 adopting any virtual Bluetooth parameters" (Reply Br. 8). We note claim 1 does not require that the virtual BT parameters are on unpaired devices, that they are not actual, physical Bluetooth addresses, or that they are adopted by either device (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 7). As the Examiner notes, and we agree, "the claims do not reflect the exact relationship of [the] virtual elements (parameters and device addresses) with sufficient detail to support Appellants' arguments" (Ans. 18). Further, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 merely defines the claim term "virtual BT parameters" as "includ[ing] a first virtual BT device address and a first secret key" (Ans. 17). As the Examiner points out, Appellants' Specification merely "describes a virtual device as ... including a set of parameters with corresponding values used by another device to establish a Bluetooth connection" (Ans. 17), wherein a "parameter[] of the virtual Bluetooth device can include a secret key, or a link key" (Spec. i-fi-16, 21 ). Thus, we do not find the Examiner's interpretation of the claim term "virtual BT parameters" as encompassing "Bluetooth device address, a PIN, a Bluetooth link key, and a public key" to be overly broad or unreasonable, 8 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 since they "all qualify[] as virtual parameters with values use[ d] by another device to establish connection" (Ans. 18; see also Final Act. 5). In view of the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim term "virtual BT parameters," we find no error in the Examiner's reliance on Moloney for disclosing and suggesting "BT parameters" used in BT communications (Final Act. 5; FF 1-2), and on Rautiola for disclosing and suggesting the use of virtual BT parameters (Final Act. 6; FF 3). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, although Appellants contend Moloney's BT parameters are not "virtual parameters" (Reply Br. 7) and that, in Rautiola, virtual BT parameters are not used "in any BT communications" (App. Br. 19), we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Moloney and Rautiola discloses or at least suggests "virtual BT parameters" as claimed. Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 20, and claims 3, 8, 11-13, 21, 25, 26, and 27 depending therefrom as obvious over Moloney and Rautiola. Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 5, 10, 22, 23, and 24 separate from claims 1, 6, and 20. Thus, we also affirm the rejections of (i) claims 5, 10, and 22 over Moloney, Rautio la, and Brown; (ii) claim 23 over Moloney, Rautiola, and Miyabayashi,;and (iii) claim 24 over Moloney, Rautiola, and Ullah. Claims 4, 9, and 14 Regarding independent claim 14, although Appellants contend "Moloney has no teaching or suggestion, and then no need of, a separate 9 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 server containing access data or virtual BT parameters" (App. Br. 22), we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Moloney and Liu teaches or at least suggests "an administrator server separate from the first BT device and the plurality of second BT devices" (Final Act. 14, emphasis added). See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. We do not find error in the Examiner's finding that "Liu discloses ... controlling a mobile device where such controls relate to a Bluetooth receiver ... where data is accessed from a separate external server" and that it would have been obvious to combine Moloney and Liu to provide "an administrator server separate from the first BT device and the plurality of second BT devices" (Final Act. 14; FF 3). Although Appellants contend that the Examiner's reason to combine Moloney and Liu would not have prompted a person of ordinary skill to make the combination (App. Br. 22), the Supreme Court has determined that the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellant has provided no evidence that combining two references directed to mobile device communication, including Bluetooth, to include "an administrator server separate" from the BT devices was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor have Appellants presented evidence that this incorporation of a teachings in the same field of endeavor yielded more than expected results. Rather, we find Appellants' invention, to an ordinarily skilled artisan, is simply a combination of familiar prior art practices or acts (as taught or 10 Appeal2014-009089 Application 13/050,622 suggested by the cited combination of references) that would have realized a predictable result. The skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. According to Appellants, "the same arguments apply" to claims 4, 9, and 14 (App. Br. 22). Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 14, and claim 19 depending therefrom, as obvious over Moloney and Liu. For the same reasons, we also find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 9 as obvious over Moloney, Rautiola, and Liu. Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 15-18 separate from claim 14. Thus, we also affirm the rejection of claims 15-18 over Moloney, Rautiola, and Liu. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation