Ex Parte Ljung et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 5, 2019

13818479 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/818,479 02/22/2013
54414 7590
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
06/05/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Ljung
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.
1358-537 1992
EXAMINER
PREVIL, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2019 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 PETER LJUNG and JOHAN W ADMAN 1
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 16, 18-21, and 23-26. Claims 2, 5, 12-15, 17, 22, and
27 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation. See
App. Br. 1.
2 We refer to the Specification, filed February 22, 2013 ("Spec."); Final
Office Action, mailed June 15, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed
November 14, 2017 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed March 2,
2018 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief, filed May 2, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to detecting a tag having an associated sensor
and receiving information from the sensor. Spec., Title. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating an electronic device, comprising:
detecting, using a tag reader circuit, a tag having a sensor
associated with the tag, the tag being configured to communicate
with the sensor to receive sensor information from the sensor and
being further configured to transmit information over a defined
distance using a short range wireless protocol via a
communication link;
receiving, via the tag reader circuit, the sensor information
transmitted by the tag over the communication link; and
sending the sensor information to an application server
periodically using a defined schedule;
wherein the sensor information comprises authentication
information that identifies a person.
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Gray
Brown
US 2005/0145187 Al
US 2009/0121890 Al
REJECTION
July 7, 2005
May 14, 2009
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 16, 18-21, and 23-26
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gray and
Brown. Final Act. 2-6.
2
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions in connection with the rejection of claim 19
are persuasive of reversible Examiner error, but Appellants' contentions with
regard to the other claims are unpersuasive. Except as noted below, in
connection with claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 23-26, we adopt as
our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-7) and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-5), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Gray's RFID reader 3 8 polling of and receipt of
identification and biometric data information transmitted by animal tag 14
and associated RFID 24 teaches sending sensor information to an application
server using a defined schedule. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Gray Figs. 1, 2;
,-J 70). The Examiner finds Brown's operation of sensor 108 teaches periodic
operations (i.e., Brown's disclosure of "periodically download[ing] updated
registry entries"). Id. at 3 ( citing Brown ,-J 30). Concluding it would have
been obvious to incorporate the periodicity of Brown into the system of
Gray, the Examiner finds the combination of references teaches or suggests
the limitation of sending the sensor information to an application server
periodically using a defined schedule as recited by claim 1 (the disputed
"sending limitation"). Id. The Examiner further applies Brown for teaching
wherein the sensor information comprises authentication information that
identifies a person. Id. ( citing Brown ,-J 29).
3
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
Appellants contend Brown discloses periodically downloading (i.e.,
receiving) information from a database to sensor 108, not "sensor 108
periodically sending biometric input information 104 that is obtained from a
sensor associated with the PDK 102 to an application server." App. Br. 7-8.
Thus, Appellants argue Brown fails to teach or suggest the disputed sending
limitation. Id. Appellants further argue Gray's periodic reading of data
from RFID device 24 fails to disclose "biometric data being communicated
periodically on a defined schedule to ... network hub 16." Id. at 8.
In response, the Examiner explains, "in Brown's system, the
information data [transmitted] to the network hub 16 and GPS receiver 28
from the server is sent periodically or when triggered by an event such a
preprogrammed clock time or from the satellite transmitter 26 when polled."
Ans. 3. Applying a broad but reasonable interpretation, the Examiner finds
Brown's data transmission teaches or suggests sending information
"periodically using a defined schedule." Id. According to the Examiner,
Gray's transmission of data by tag 14 to network hub 16 is according to a
time schedule thereby teaching the disputed periodic communication of
biometric data on a defined schedule. Id. at 4 ( citing Gray Fig. 1, ,i,i 70-72).
Appellants reply, arguing the Examiner's interpretation of periodically
is overly broad. Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, an appropriate
definition of periodic is "' occurring or recurring at regular intervals."' Id.
( quoting fq1ERRIA~,1-vVEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 10rn EDITION, P.
864 (Merriam-\Vebster) (1997)). Appellants argue '"Gray does not describe
the communication of sensor information to the hub 16 as occurring at a
regufar interval" as required if sent periodically according to the disputed
sending limitation. Id
"'··'
4
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
AppeHants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversibfo Examfoer
error. \Ve are unpersuaded the combination of Gray and Brmvn is deficient
because, according to Appellants, Brmvn discloses periodically sending
information to, rather than receiving information from, a sensor. 5/ee App.
Br. 7-8. Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence or persuasive
argument that Brown's disclosure of a periodic transmission of data is
limited to downloadir1g data by a taKfrom a database or registry and fails to
teach or suggest the periodic transmission of data in the reverse directior1~
i.e., from sensor and tag to an application server. For example, Brown also
discloses that '"the sensor 108 is further communicatively coupled to the
netvvork 110 in order to receive and/or transmit information;' albeit "'to
remote databases!' See Brown~ 30.
\Ve also disagree Gray is deficient See App. Br. 6. Gray discloses
''[ t]he animal tag 14 satellite transmitter 26 then transmit the animal .. ,
biometrics , .. to the satellite 12 .. , The netvvork hub collects the
information and stores it in an electronic record on a data server." Gray
i170. Gray a1so discloses '"[t]he system conserves battery power by only
reading the RFU) device 24 and the GPS receiver 26 data periodica11y."
Gray~ 7L One skilled in the mi would have understood reading an RFID
device includes sending infonnation from the Rfll) device to a device , __
initiating or perfonning a read operation. 'fhere:fore. Grav discloses
i.._... .,, ;, ...
periodically sending sensor information to an application server. Thus, for
the reasons discussed, the combined teachings of Bro\vn and Gray - teach
the disputed periodic sending of information to an application server.
Fmihermore, we disagree Gray fails to teach using a defined schedule.
Gray discloses "'data collected from the RFID 24 [is] ... transmitted to the
5
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
satellite \vhen triggered by a request from the satellite or at a lime scheduled
by the CPU 36!' Gray~! 72 (emphasis added). Gray thereby teaches or
suggests the claimed defined schedule. We also agree with the Examiner in
finding that under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the argued claim
language, Brmvn and Gray's disclosure of periodic data transmissions
teaches or suggests using a defined schedule. Ans. 4. Appellants fail to
direct attention to, and we do not find~ a definition in the Specification for
the argued defined schedule. In particular, Appellants do not explain \vhy
periodically sending infr1rmation fails to teach or suggest defining a schedule
(e.g., times at v.1hich infi1rmation is to be sent) that may include periodic
and/or aperiodic transmissions. Thus, under a broad hut reasonable
interpretation, a periodicity as disclosed by both Gray and Brown further
teaches or sue:gests a defined schedule for sending senor in formation as
0~ ~
claimed.
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and for
the same reasons, the rejection of independent claims 21 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gray and Brown together with the rejection of
dependent claims 3, 6-11, 16, 18, 20, and 23-25, which are not argued
separately with particularity.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites "[t]he method of Claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a message from the application server providing needed
information for interacting with another device." The Examiner finds
Brown's Sensor Management Module (SMM) 730 exchanges messages with
application 720 using application layer message bus 7 40 allowing
6
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
applications 720 to communicate with personal digital keys (PDKs) 102,
thereby teaching or suggesting the limitation of claim 4. Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend "Brown does not provide any description, however, of a
sensor S receiving a message from an application server providing the sensor
S with information needed for interacting with another device." App. Br. 8-
9. The Examiner responds, explaining
Brown discloses [a] message from an application server
(application 120A in fig. 1) providing the sensor S 108 (fig. 1)
with information needed for interacting with another device (fig.
4-fig. 5; page 6, [0060]); the system includes layer message bus
7 40 over which the SMM 73 0 and applications 720 can exchange
messages via communication with PDK 102 and sensor 108 (fig.
4-fig. 5; page 6, [0060]).
Ans. 4. Appellants reply, conceding "Brown discloses the ability of the
applications 720 and Sensor Management Module 730 to exchange
messages," but arguing there is no description "that a message may provide
needed information for interacting with another device." Reply Br. 2.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error as lacking
sufficient explanation of why Brown's messages fail to include the recited
information needed for interacting with another device. Appellants'
Specification does not illuminate what is required to satisfy the argued
limitation, there being no clear definition or description of information
needed for interacting with another device. Furthermore, even if the argued
message content limitation was clearly set forth, that content has no
functional relationship with the claimed method. Claim 4 does not recite
any use of the "needed information for interacting with another device," and
the recited "another device" has no role in the claimed method. Thus, the
recited content of the message is deficient in distinguishing the claimed
7
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
message over the messages taught by Brown. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057,
1072-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that claim language is non-limiting if it
has no functional relationship with, or effect on, the claimed process).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, we sustain the rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gray and Brown.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites "[t]he method of Claim 1, further comprising:
sending a message to the tag, the message used to operate a device
responsive to authenticating an identity of the person." The Examiner finds
Brown discloses the recited limitation at paragraphs 29 and 60. Final Act. 5.
Appellants contend "[ n ]either paragraph provides any description of a sensor
108 or S sending a message to a PDK 102 that is used to operate a device
responsive to authenticating an identity of a person." App. Br. 9. The
Examiner responds, finding Brown's disclosure of "requiring [an] ... owner
to remove the PDK 102 from his/her pocket, wallet, [or] purse" teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation of claim 19. Ans. 5.
We agree with Appellants that Brown fails to describe a message
being used as required, i.e., to operate a device responsive to authenticating
an identity of the person. Because the recited action is expressed in the past
tense, it is an actual use, i.e., action, required by the claim rather than a
future or intended use. Accordingly, in the absence of a clear teaching of the
use of the message as required, we are constrained by the record before us
and do not sustain the rejection of claim 19.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claim 19.
8
Appeal2018-005425
Application 13/818,479
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 16,
18, 20, 21, and 23-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9