13592396 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

Ex Parte Kerai

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2017

13592396 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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. 13/592,396 08/23/2012 Kanji Kerai P6471US00 1756 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER KHAN, OMER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2017 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KANJI KERAI Appeal 2016-005677 Application 13/592,396 Technology Center 2600 Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, SHARON FENICK, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-005677 Application 13/592,396 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and apparatus for secure asset tracking (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: l.A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: at least one determination of identification criteria associated with at least one scanning device; a processing of the identification criteria to cause, at least in part, a transmission of at least one scan response to the at least one scanning device including, at least in part, asset data associated with at least one tag; and a modification of one or more advertising packets of the at least one tag based, at least in part, on the transmission of the asset data. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Willuns US 2009/0234728 A1 Sept. 17,2009 Blom US 2012/0136865 A1 May 31,2012 Polo US 2013/0109315 A1 May 2,2013 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4—7, 9—11, 14—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willuns and Blom (Ans. 2—8, 11; Final Act. 3-10). 2 Appeal 2016-005677 Application 13/592,396 Claims 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willuns, Blom, and Polo (Ans. 8—11; Final Act. 10-11). ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 4-7, 9 11, 14-17, 19, and 20 Appellant contends their invention as recited in claims 1, 4—7, 9—11, 14—17, 19, and 20, is not obvious over Willuns and Blom (App. Br. 10-16). The issue presented by the arguments is: Issue: Does the combination of Willuns and Blom teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious “a modification of one or more advertising packets of the at least one tag based, at least in part, on the transmission of the asset data,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would know that an “advertising packet,” “as used in context of short range wireless communication technologies and as described throughout the Specification, is not related to conventional advertising of consumer goods” (App. Br. 11). We construe advertising as “[a] packet switched networking term. Advertising is a process in which routing or service updates are sent at specified intervals so that other router on the network can maintain lists of usable routes” (Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 53 (21st ed. 2005)). This interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s Specification (see e.g., Spec. HIT 1,24, 25). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Willuns teaches an RFID scanner may continuously emit radio frequency waves such that when a transponder 3 Appeal 2016-005677 Application 13/592,396 passes the RFID scanner, the transponder may be energized and may respond with information (Final Act. 3^4; Willuns 41 42). The Examiner finds Willuns’ transponder teaches the recited tag (Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 11). The Examiner relies on Blom as teaching the recited “one or more advertising packets of the at least one tag based, at least in part, on the transmission of the asset data” (Ans. 12—13; Final Act. 5—6). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Blom’s teaching of “determining and utilizing geographical locations contextually relevant to a user,” and thus finds Blom’s system 100 supports location based advertising (Ans. 12; Final Act. 5). More specifically, the Examiner finds Blom teaches “location anchors (e.g., home, office, gym, library, etc.) are displayed to the user” (Blom | 53; Final Act. 5). Blom further teaches system 100 may collect context data on a user with respect to an application associated with location anchors, such as, for example, tracking the number of times a user visits geographic locations using for example, location markers or beacons at specific locations (e.g., Bluetooth communication) (Blom | 60; Final Act. 5). The Examiner further relies on Blom as teaching use of location anchors to customize and/or deliver location based advertisements (Blom 1134; Final Act. 5). The Examiner then reasons because Blom teaches location point module 503 updates the counter associated with the access point (Final Act. 5; Blom 196), an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the packets of Willuns’ tag “since tags are anticipated to be used as 4 Appeal 2016-005677 Application 13/592,396 access point for the purpose of location tracking based on the transmission” (Final Act. 5). Although we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Blom teaches counting the number of times a user visits a location is counted, we are persuaded by Appellant that the disclosed modification of data in Blom is not a modification of an advertising packet, as recited in claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner finds the location point module updates the counter associated with the access point with respect to number of times and minutes the access point has had a location associated with it and been seen (Blom || 60, 96, 120; Ans. 12—13). Additionally, the Examiner finds “[t]he information is advertised to the user along with other information, and this information continuously changes each time the user is at a particular access point; hence, modifying the advertising packets” (Ans. 13 (citing Blom | 120)). This modification is not of the location anchor’s advertising packet, but instead, of a counter and access point information. Indeed, the Examiner has not shown this counter and access point information is “advertised” or sent out at specified intervals. The Examiner further finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious “to modify Willuns and modify the advertisement packets of the tag since tags are used at each access point for the purpose of location tracking” (Ans. 13). However, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner has not shown communication in Willuns or Blom, taken alone or in combination, teaches the claimed advertising packets or how modifying a counter and/or or access information at either a scanner or user device modifies an advertising packet. 5 Appeal 2016-005677 Application 13/592,396 Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not shown the combination of Willuns and Blom teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “a modification of one or more advertising packets of the at least one tag based, at least in part, on the transmission of the asset data,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 11. The dependent claims stand with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4—7, 9—11, 14—17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Willuns and Blom. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, and 18 Claims 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, and 18 depend from independent claims 1 and 11, respectively. As set forth above, Appellant have persuaded us the Examiner has not shown the combination of Willuns and Blom teaches, suggests, or otherwise render obvious the invention as set forth in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively. The Examiner has not shown Polo cures the deficiencies of Willuns and Blum. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Willuns, Blom, and Polo. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—7, 9—11, 14—17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willuns and Blom is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, and 18 under 6 Appeal 2016-005677 Application 13/592,396 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willuns, Blom, and Polo is reversed. REVERSED 7