Ex Parte Sheynblat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

11733130 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte LEONID SHEYNBLAT, BRUCE WILSON, ABHISHEK
ADAPPA, SRINIVAS PATWARI, and RICKY YUEN
____________
Appeal 2011-010782
Application 11/733,130
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-39, 41-43, and 45. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-010782
Application 11/733,130

2
Claim 25 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
25. A method performed by a handheld mobile device, comprising:
receiving data requests that originate from a number of clients,
wherein each of the number of clients corresponds to a different application
configured for execution by the handheld mobile device and the data
requests include at least one data request that specifies a particular type of
sensor measurement data to be returned, without identifying a particular
physical sensor to be used in acquiring the particular type of sensor
measurement data;
determining what sensor data can be used to satisfy the data requests;
dynamically, in response to the at least one data request, discovering a
number of physical sensors from which a device can currently receive sensor
data;
receiving, from at least one of the number of physical sensors, some
or all of the sensor data that can be used to satisfy the data requests; and
if possible, satisfying the data requests using the received sensor data.

The remaining independent claims 1, 31, 35, and 43 similarly recite
discovering a number of physical sensors in response to a data request.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
Claims 25, 28, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Krco1;
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 13, 26, 27, and 35-38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krco;
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis2 in view of Krco, and further in view of Miyata3;

1 Krco, Cleary, and Parker, P2P Mobile Sensor Networks, PROC. 38TH
HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCES,
1-8 (2005).
2 U.S. Patent No. 6,182,010 B1, issued Jan. 30, 2001.
Appeal 2011-010782
Application 11/733,130

3
Claims 9, 29, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krco in view of Maenner4;
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krco in view of McCall5;
Claims 16-21 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krco in view of Bye6;
Claims 22-24, 30, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krco in view of Paradiso7;
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis in view of Krco, and further in view of Miyata and
Paradiso; and
Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krco in view of Nykanen.8

ANALYSIS
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that the claimed subject matter of
representative claim 25 is anticipated within the meaning of § 102 in view
Krco. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we also find that the preponderance of evidence on

3 U.S. Publication No. 2003/0061403 A1, published Mar. 27, 2003.
4 U.S. Publication No. 2005/0216106 A1, published Sept. 29, 2005.
5 U.S. Publication No. 2002/0188522 A1, published Dec. 12, 2002.
6 U.S. Patent No. 7,248,964 B2, issued Jul. 24, 2007.
7 U.S. Patent No. 7,429,936 B2, issued Sept. 30, 2008.
8 U.S. Publication No. 2002/0173295 A1, published Nov. 21, 2002.
Appeal 2011-010782
Application 11/733,130

4
this record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ independent claims 31, 35, and 43 is unpatentable over the
applied prior art. We sustain the above rejections based on the Examiner’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to Appellants’ arguments
as expressed in the Answer.
We add the following for emphasis.
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
The main dispute presented in this appeal is whether Krco describes
the claim limitation “dynamically, in response to the at least one data
request, discovering a number of physical sensors from which a device can
currently receive sensor data” (claim 25), or the similar corresponding
limitation present in each independent claim. A preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s position that the claims encompass the control
scheme of Krco, and that Krco teaches the disputed claim limitation (e.g.,
Ans. 45-50, which include the Examiner’s detailed claim mapping chart for
claim 25).
The Appellants assertion that “it does not appear likely that the
gateway in Krco would wait until sensor measurement data was actually
required (i.e., requested) before attempting to discover the sensors in its
network” (Br. 10) is unavailing.
Appeal 2011-010782
Application 11/733,130

5
Notably, the plain language of the term “discovering a number of
physical sensors” as claimed does not require network discovery (e.g., Ans.
45 (Examiner points out that limitations from the Specification are not to be
read into the claims)). Instead, discovering a number of sensors may
encompass a gateway discovering which sensors can answer the data
request. “Users can describe data they are interested in using . . . [i]t is [the]
responsibility of a gateway node to send requests for described data to
relevant sensors in the network” (Krco 3). This interpretation is consistent
with the Appellants’ Specification. Indeed, Figure 3 illustrates an
embodiment where the sensor interface 302 directly connects to sensors 1-4
via IC bus 344 and MCU 350. Network discovery is not required.
Appellants have not explained why their claims would exclude their Figure 3
embodiment.
However, even when interpreting this claim limitation in a light most
favorable to the Appellants (i.e., as requiring network discovery), the
Examiner aptly points out that Krco teaches that the responsibility of the
gateway is to “discover available wireless sensors in the surrounding
environment when required” (Krco 4; Ans. 50; no responsive brief has been
filed). Furthermore, Krco states explicitly “[u]sers interaction with external
sensors networks will occur in a spontaneous fashion” (Krco 5); and “this
dynamic service formation wi[ll] . . . be facilitated by ad-hoc mechanisms to
search for required services and available networks.” Id.
Appellants do not present any additional arguments for any of the
claims separately rejected; the only argument is Krco’s alleged failure to
teach the aforementioned claim limitation (see, e.g., Ans. 51). Accordingly,
Appellants have not shown error in any of the Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2011-010782
Application 11/733,130

6
We sustain each of the rejections made by the Examiner in this
appeal.
The Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED

cdc