Ex Parte Hillyard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2013

11019072 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON HILLYARD and JAKU JOSE
____________

Appeal 2010-008651
Application 11/019,072
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-36.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
December 1, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed March 11,
2010; and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed May 11, 2010.
Appeal 2010-008651
Application 11/019,072

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for determining
the roles of communicating Bluetooth (BT) devices based on stored role
switching information. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for controlling a plurality of personal area network
access devices, the method comprising:
determining current roles for a plurality of communicating
Bluetooth devices;
in response to receiving a new connection, determining whether to
switch from at least one of said determined current roles for said
plurality of communicating Bluetooth devices based on stored role
switching information, wherein said role switching information
comprises information on at least one application running on at least
one of said plurality of communicating Bluetooth devices; and
if a role switch is allowed, switching to at least one new role based
on said stored role switching information.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Torma US 2004/0117507 A1 June 17, 2004
(filed Nov. 12, 2003)

The Rejection
Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Torma. Ans. 3-7.

THE CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, Appellants argue that Torma does
not disclose determining whether to switch a current role for a BT device
based on stored role switching information and in response to receiving a
new connection. App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 3-7. Specifically, Appellants
Appeal 2010-008651
Application 11/019,072

3
assert that: (1) the mapped role switching information that comprises
information on an application cannot be Torma’s timing information because
this information does not relate to information on the application running on
the devices (App. Br. 11-12); (2) initialization of the first sync connection in
Torma is an attempt to establish a new connection but no connection has
been made (App. Br. 12); (3) Torma does not disclose switching roles based
on stored role switching information but rather memory space availability or
“other device performance or device property” (App. Br. 12-13 (citing
¶ 0036)); and (4) Torma does not use previously stored role information
during the initial synchronization step and while a new connection exists
(Reply Br. 5-6).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 26, Appellants argue Torma does not
disclose master and slave roles. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 8.
Concerning claims 6, 18, and 30, Appellants repeat argument that
Torma fails to disclose receiving a new connection. App. Br. 15.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Torma discloses:
(1)(a) in response to receiving a new connection, determining whether
to switch from the determined current role for a BT device based on a stored
role switching information and (b) switching to a new role based on the
stored role switching information as recited in claim 1?
(2) the determined current and new roles comprise a master and/or
slave role as recited in claim 2?
(3) the lookup table comprises a role corresponding to the received
new connection as recited in claim 6?
Appeal 2010-008651
Application 11/019,072

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17, 19-25, 27-29, and 31-36
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, which recites the role switching information comprises
information on an application running on a BT device. Appellants argue that
the role switching information that comprises information on an application
mapped by the Examiner cannot be timing information because this
information does not relate to information on the application running on the
devices. App. Br. 11-12. Admittedly, the rejection does include “timing
information” next to the phrase, “said role switching information comprises
information . . . .” Ans. 3. Yet, the Examiner additionally cites Torma’s
paragraphs 0025, 0031, 0032, and 0035 (see id.), which describe “role
information” related to BT terminals TE1 and TE2 serving as a sync server
and/or client during syncing. See also ¶¶ 0019, 0031-32. The Examiner also
elaborates that the role information can be application-specific. See Ans. 8
(citing ¶ 0025). We, therefore, disagree that Torma fails to disclose role
switching information comprises information on an application running on a
BT device.
Next, Appellants argue that the sending and receiving of packages
between the first and second devices TE1 and TE2 is only an attempt to
establish a first connection and not an actual connection. App. Br. 12. We
disagree. As the Examiner notes (Ans. 7-8), Torma sets up an OBject
EXchange (OBEX) connection between TE1 and TE2 (e.g., BT devices) at
steps 501 and 502 during synchronization. See Ans. 7-8 (citing ¶ 0030); see
also Fig. 5. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 12; Reply
Br. 5), the Examiner finds that the OBEX connection, not the initialization
Appeal 2010-008651
Application 11/019,072

5
of the first sync session, corresponds to the “new connection” recited in
claim 1. We agree that setting up an OBEX connection, as discussed in
Torma, is reasonably considered receiving a new connection as broadly
recited.
Appellants further contend that Torma does not disclose determining
whether to switch current roles and switching roles based on stored role
switching information. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4-7. At first, Appellants
argue that Torma’s role switching is based on memory space, other device
performance, or a device property, but not on stored information. App. Br.
13 (citing ¶ 0036). Then, in response to the Examiner’s explanation in the
Answer, Appellants argue that Torma does not use previously stored role
information during the initial synchronization step (Reply Br. 5 (indicating
this is the Examiner’s purported new connection)) and that any role
information is stored during or after the first sync session (Reply Br. 6-7).
We are not persuaded.
Claim 1 does not include a temporal component such that the
determining step must happen immediately or directly in response to
receiving a new connection. Given this construction, subsequent sync
sessions that occur after receiving a new connection and that use stored role
information to determine whether to switch from a current role to a new role
can reasonably be mapped to determining whether to switch roles in
response to a new connection and based on stored role switching
information. Also, and contrary to Appellants’ position (Reply Br. 4
(emphasis omitted)), while the determining step is performed in response to
receiving a new connection, claim 1 does not require the switching step to
Appeal 2010-008651
Application 11/019,072

6
“take place during the step [of] a new connection [] being received and
established[.]”
Additionally, we find that a new connection (e.g., an OBEX
connection) will also be set up in Torma during a second or subsequent sync
session. Specifically, Figure 5 shows an OBEX connection being received
at steps 501 and 502 when initiating synchronization. See Ans. 7 (citing
¶¶ 0030-0034). During this new connection, package synchronization
occurs and then the OBEX connection terminates at steps 513 and 514. See
¶¶ 0032-0034; Fig. 5. Torma further discusses initiating a subsequent or
second sync session (e.g., step 303). See ¶ 0035 (referring to Fig. 3, which
is discussed at ¶¶ 0022-23); Figs. 3, 5. Like the first sync session, this
second session would also involve setting up an OBEX connection (e.g., a
new connection). See ¶ 0030. Moreover, Torma discloses a first sync
device TE1 stores sync server as role information for these subsequent
sessions and uses this stored role information (e.g., steps 305-306) to
determine whether to switch roles for TE1 (e.g., a BT device). ¶¶ 0022-23.
Thus, Torma discloses setting up an OBEX connection (e.g., a new
connection) for a sync session, such as a second sync session (e.g., step
303), and determining whether to switch roles for a BT device (e.g., TE1)
based on stored role switching information (e.g., steps 304-306). See
¶¶ 0035, 0022-23; Fig. 3; see also Ans. 8 (citing ¶ 0035, 0022).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3-5, 7-13, 15-17, 19-25,
27-29, and 31-36 not separately argued with particularity.

Appeal 2010-008651
Application 11/019,072

7
Claims 2, 14, 26
The Examiner has made a finding that the current and new roles
include the server role as a master role and a client role as a slave role.
Ans. 8-9. Appellants fail to adequately rebut this finding, arguing no more
than Torma fails to disclose “master” and “slave” roles. App. Br. 14; Reply
Br. 8. However, identity of terminology between Torma and the claim
limitations is not required. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Based on the evidence of record, Appellants have not persuaded us
of error in the rejection of claims 2, 14, and 26.

Claims 6, 18, and 30
Appellants repeat the arguments made in connection with claim 1
concerning the recited step of determining being performed in response to a
new connection. We disagree for the above stated reasons. Additionally,
Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s finding that Torma discloses
the lookup table that stores role switching information. Ans. 6. Given the
breadth of claim 6, we find that the stored role information includes roles
(e.g., server or client) and that, because a role is assigned to terminals for a
given connection (e.g., an OBEX connection), the role corresponds to the
received connection. Based on the record, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 6, 18, and 30.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-36 under § 102.

Appeal 2010-008651
Application 11/019,072

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-36 is affirmed.
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

rwk