Ex Parte Pal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2018

14032115 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/032,115 09/19/2013
70336 7590 08/13/2018
Seed IP Law Group/DISH Technologies (290110)
701 FIFTH A VENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
Rajiv Singh Cullen Pal
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.
P2013-04-02 (290110.582) 3732
EXAMINER
TERRELL, EMILY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJIV SINGH CULLEN PAL
Appeal 2016-007 646
Application 14/032, 115
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2016-007646
Application 14/032, 115
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to apparatus, method and article for security
of electronic devices, which is maintained by pairing devices. More
particularly, when an authorized user carries an external paired device, this
provides the authorized user of the accessible device the ability to
conveniently restrict the use of the accessible device and access to various
functionalities of the accessible device, such as access to particular
television programming or streaming media at times when the authorized
user is not in close proximity or in the same general area of the accessible
device. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A security system for an accessible device comprising:
a controller; and a communications module coupled to
the controller, wherein the controller is configured to:
use the communications module to wirelessly receive
information from an external device over a wireless connection
that has a maximum range of communication of any amount
less than about ten meters;
make a determination whether to allow access to a
functionality of the accessible device based on the wirelessly
received information from the external device; and
allow access to the functionality of the accessible device
if a result of the determination is to allow the access.
16. A method enabling functionality of an accessible device
compnsmg:
wirelessly receiving, at a communication module within a
paired device, security information associated with access to a
functionality of the accessible device; and
sending to the accessible device, at the communication module
within the paired device, information based on the received security
2
Appeal2016-007646
Application 14/032, 115
information to facilitate access to a functionality of the accessible
device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hsu
Karaoguz
Nisenboim
Adams
US 6,374,079 Bl
US 2006/0025132 Al
US 2007/0171091 Al
US 7,564,369 Bl
REJECTIONS
Apr. 16, 2002
Feb.02,2006
July 26, 2007
July 21, 2009
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Nisenboim in view of Karaoguz and further in view
of Hsu. Final Act. 3-12.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Nisenboim in view of Karaoguz and Hsu and further in
view of Adams. Final Act. 12-14.
Claims 16-23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Karaoguz and Nisenboim. Final Act. 14-20.
OPINION
Claims 1 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S. C § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 9 as indefinite because, according
to the Examiner, the term "about" is not defined by the claim, the
specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite
3
Appeal2016-007646
Application 14/032, 115
degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised
of the scope of the invention (Final Act. 2).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because relative terminology
such as "about" is allowed in patent claims (App. Br. 8). Appellant cites
MPEP 2173.05(b) subsection III.A, which states that
determining the range encompassed by the term 'about', one
must consider the context of the term as it is used in the
specification and claims of the application. Ortho-McNeil
Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd, 476 F.3d 1321,
1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In W.L. Gore &
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303
(Fed. Cir. 1983), the court held that a limitation defining the
stretch rate of a plastic as 'exceeding about 10% per second' is
definite because infringement could clearly be assessed through
the use of a stopwatch
App. Br. 8.
Appellant argues that similarly to the above cited section,
infringement of the "about 10 meters" limitation of claim 1 could easily be
assessed through the use of a tape measure. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument. We further note that the
Specification recites
Thus, in one embodiment an authorized user may carry the
external paired device with them, and when they walk into the
room where the accessible device is located ( or are otherwise
within wireless communication range of the accessible device)
the applicable functionality of and/or service of the accessible
device will become unlocked or otherwise made available
without the authorized user having to manually enter or provide
additional user credentials.
4
Appeal2016-007646
Application 14/032, 115
Spec. 1-2, emphasis added. Thus, the Specification provides guidance as to
the meaning of the terms "about 10 meters" as being the range of
communication within a room.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 9 as
indefinite.
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 rejected under 35 U.S. C § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Nisenboim in view of Karaoguz and further in view of
Hsu.
Appellant argues that the combination of Nisenboim, Karaoguz, and
Hsu does not teach or suggest the limitation of "make a determination
whether to allow access to a functionality of the accessible device based on
the wirelessly received information from the external device" as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 10-13).
In particular, Appellant argues, inter alia, that Karaoguz discloses a
system for remote and local control of accessible devices ( e.g., smart
appliances) by one or more "Access devices" (i.e., mobile phone handset or
personal computer) via a broadband access gateway (App. Br. 12 (citing
Karaoguz ,r,r 22, 30, 32)). According to Appellant, gateway 118 of
Karaoguz grants access to the gateway to pre-registered "Access devices" or
accepts or denies requests from the "Access devices" for access to the
gateway (see para. 32 of Karaoguz) (App. Br. 12). Appellant asserts that
Karaoguz does not teach or suggest making a determination whether to
allow access to a functionality of the accessible devices (i.e., smart
appliances) based on the wirelessly received informationfrom the external
device (from gateway 118) as it is conversely the external device (gateway
118) that determines whether to allow the "Access devices" (i.e., mobile
5
Appeal2016-007646
Application 14/032, 115
phone or personal computer) access to a functionality of gateway 118 (App.
Br. 12).
The Examiner states on page 25 of the Final Office Action "[t]he
gateway serves as the external device allowing access to the accessible
devices, the smart appliances" (App. Br. 12). Appellant contends that claim
1 requires that the determination of whether to allow access to a
functionality of the accessible device is based on the wirelessly received
information from the external device (from gateway 118 of Karaoguz) (App.
Br. 12). Appellant further argues that the gateway of Karaoguz does not
wirelessly receive information from itself on which it bases this
determination to allow access (App. Br. 12).
While the Examiner repeats that the gateway makes that
determination, and the Examiner cites paragraphs 24, 32-34, and 80, the
Examiner stops short of citing a specific paragraph for the teaching of
making a determination whether to allow access to a functionality of the
accessible device based on the wirelessly received informationfrom the
external device (i.e., the gateway). See Ans. 10-13. The Examiner further
makes the unsupported assertion that the Access Device housing the
controller makes this decision without any citation to a specific paragraph
(see Ans. 10).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and
12-15 for the same reasons as the additional references ofNisenboim and
Hsu do not cure the above cited deficiencies.
6
Appeal2016-007646
Application 14/032, 115
Claims 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S. C § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Nisenboim in view of Karaoguz and Hsu and further in
view of Adams.
We also reverse dependent claims 10 and 11 as they suffer from the
same deficiency as discussed supra. The additional reference of Adams
does not cure the deficiency.
Claims 16--23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Karaoguz and Nisenboim.
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Final Action and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues that the combination of references does not teach or
suggest the limitation of "receiving, at a communication module within a
paired device, security information associated with access to a functionality
of the accessible device" as recited in claim 16 (App. Br. 15).
In the Final Action, the Examiner mapped the access device to a
personal computer or a personal digital assistant (PDA) and the accessible
devices to smart devices such as home entertainment equipment (see Final
Act. 15 and also see para. 22 defining access devices and smart devices).
The Examiner further mapped the limitation of "communication module
within a paired device, security information associated with access to a
functionality of the accessible device" to the security information associated
with recognition and access to the smart devices via the broadband access
gateway (see Final Act. 15 citing paras. 32-39 and also see para. 22 stating
"aspects of the present invention relate to remote and local configuration and
control of smart appliances and premise systems via a broadband access
gateway" (emphasis added)). We note that paragraph 22 recites that
7
Appeal2016-007646
Application 14/032, 115
"[a]ccess devices may be used to control such smart appliances," thus
further providing support that the security information is associated with
access to the functionality of the accessible device by allowing control of the
accessible device's functionality. We further note that the Examiner relied
on Nisenboim for the explicit teaching of a communication module inside an
access device wherein the access device may be used to control smart
appliances (Final Action 15-16).
Thus, we are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
"it is the gateway 118 of Karaoguz, not the access device, that receives the
security information associated with access by the access device to a
functionality of the gateway" (App. Br. 16) because the access device
controls accessible devices via the received security information associated
with access.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's assertion that the "access
devices are not paired" (App. Br. 16) because the Examiner does not make
such a finding, but rather, the Examiner finds that the access devices are
paired with the accessible devices (i.e. smart devices) which they control
wirelessly (see Final Act. 15).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 17-23 not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
is reversed.
8
Appeal2016-007646
Application 14/032, 115
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 12-15 rejected under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 16-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9