Ex Parte KimDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201511704148 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/704,148 02/08/2007 Sang-Don Kim 678-2699 1196 66547 7590 02/12/2015 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER NGUYEN, AN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/12/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SANG-DON KIM ____________ Appeal 2012-011210 Application 11/704,148 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-011210 Application 11/704,148 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–11. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellant’s invention is directed to pairing Bluetooth® communication devices. Spec. 1, ll. 14–16. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A Bluetooth system comprising: a first Bluetooth device for detecting a request for Bluetooth connection using a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), activating an RFID reader, displaying a message indicating activation of the RFID reader, reading RFID information from an RFID tag of a second Bluetooth device, displaying a message indicating the reading of the RFID tag, extracting bonding information from the RFID information to pair the second Bluetooth device, pairing the second Bluetooth device using the bonding information and performing Bluetooth communication; and the second Bluetooth device having the RFID tag, wherein the RFID tag stores the bonding information of the second Bluetooth device; wherein the bonding information includes a Personal Identification Number (PIN) Code, and wherein the first Bluetooth device determines whether a security mode is set, and when the security mode is set, the first Bluetooth device sends the PIN Code to the second Bluetooth device and exchanges a link key for an encryption procedure with the second Bluetooth device. Appeal 2012-011210 Application 11/704,148 3 B. The Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dua (US 2006/0258289 A1, Nov. 16, 2006) in combination with Cooper (US 2002/0123325 A1, Sept. 5, 2002). Ans. 4–10. ANALYSIS Having reviewed the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, and the Examiner’s response, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–11. A. Claim 1 Appellant first contends the Examiner erred in finding Dua teaches “displaying a message indicating the reading of the RFID tag,” as claim 1 recites. App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds, however, that Dua teaches an RFID tag reader which provides notification through “sounds/tones or display[ing] specific messages letting the user of media device 100 know of successful read, unsuccessful read, reader time-outs, and other possible results or actions associated with RFID Tag-Reader Module 113.” Ans. 10 (citing Dua ¶¶ 90, 220). We agree with the Examiner that Dua’s notification does meet “displaying a message indicating the reading of the RFID tag,” as claim 1 recites. Ans. 10. Appellant next contends the Examiner erred in finding Cooper teaches “wherein the first Bluetooth device determines whether a security mode is set, and when the security mode is set, the first Bluetooth device sends the PIN Code to the second Bluetooth device and exchanges a link key for an encryption procedure with the second Bluetooth device.” App. Br. 7. Appellant argues Cooper is deficient because it fails to teach the claimed PIN code/link key exchange, or that the exchange is contingent upon a Appeal 2012-011210 Application 11/704,148 4 security mode being set. App. Br. 8–9. The Examiner responds that Cooper teaches the disputed limitation by disclosing a security mode contingent on proximity between two pairing Bluetooth devices. Ans. 11. The Examiner further explains when the devices are adequately close, “a security mode is entered and a further step of authentication is required” in which the two devices exchange a “security code (i.e. PIN code)” which is then used to generate a “link key for encryption of the communication channel.” Id. Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Appellant emphasizes that unlike claim 1, Cooper’s security mode is based on physical proximity. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. That distinction is not relevant to the Examiner’s finding, however, because claim 1 neither requires nor proscribes any particular criteria for setting the security mode. For similar reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument distinguishing claim 1’s PIN code from Cooper’s security code based on Cooper’s teaching that the security code may indicate the device’s address. App. Br. 9. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 does not proscribe using a device’s address as its PIN code. Appellant also protests the Examiner’s reliance on Cooper because “Claim 1 sets forth that a first Bluetooth device sends the pin code obtained from bonding information extracted from the RFID tag of a second Bluetooth device,” whereas “in Cooper, a slave device sends a security code of itself” to the master device. App. Br. 9. We are not persuaded by this argument for two reasons. First, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Cooper’s authentication procedure requires the two devices “exchange” a security code (i.e. PIN), a process which Cooper indicates would include sending the security code from master to slave, as well as vice versa. See Ans. 11; Cooper ¶¶ 11–12. Moreover, the test for obviousness “is what the Appeal 2012-011210 Application 11/704,148 5 combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relied on Dua, not Cooper, for teaching a PIN code obtained from bonding information extracted from the RFID tag of a second Bluetooth device. Ans. 5. The Examiner further found the combination of Dua and Cooper teaches or suggests the disputed limitation because Cooper teaches the claimed security mode and an authentication process which includes sending a security code and exchanging a link key for encryption. Ans. 10–11. Appellant’s argument, however, addresses Cooper alone. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Cooper teaches the claimed contingent security mode and associated PIN code/link key exchange. For the reasons outlined above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. B. Claims 2–11 Appellant provides no separate arguments for the patentability of claims 2–11, but instead relies on the same arguments noted supra. App. Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 3. For the same reasons stated above for claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2–11. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11. 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) (2011). AFFIRMED lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation