Ex Parte Sydir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2018

13726375 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131726,375 12/24/2012
116341 7590
Schiff Hardin LLP (Intel)
c/o Laura C. Brutman
Schiff Hardin LLP
666 Fifth A venue
New York, NY 10103
05/01/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
J aroslaw J. Sydir
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.
42536-0416 (P50272US) 5550
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DUC M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2018 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):
Patents-NY @schiffhardin.com
lbrutman@schiffhardin.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAROSLA W J. SYD IR and
ANTHONY G. LAMARCA
Appeal2017-010680
Application 13/726,375
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3-5, 7-13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24--28, and 31-34. Claims 2, 6, 14, 15, 18,
21, 23, 29, and 30 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' application relates to tracking, by a portable device,
historical usage of wireless peripherals at specific locations in order to make
decisions for binding with particular peripherals when the portable device
returns to specific locations. Spec. i-fi-110-12. The location of the portable
Appeal2017-010680
Application 13/726,375
device is defined using WiFi fingerprinting, which relies on detection of
ambient identifiable wireless signal (IWS) sources, such as a wireless access
point (WAP). Spec. i-fi-f 13-14. "Generally, WiFi fingerprinting involves
memorizing a location based upon the WAP 'fingerprint' of 'visible' WAPs
and their observed signal strengths." Spec. i-f 14. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A portable device comprising:
a wireless-peripheral detector configured to detect a usage
of a particular wireless peripheral device by a portable device,
wherein the wireless-peripheral detector is further configured to
track timing information about the usage includes at least a
frequency or duration of use by the portable device of the
particular wireless peripheral device;
WiFi-fingerprint determiner configured to determine one
or more WiFi fingerprints about the portable device, wherein the
one or more WiFi fingerprints are defined, at least in part, by one
or more observed ambient identifiable wireless signal (IWS)
sources about the portable device while the wireless-peripheral
detector detects the usage of a particular wireless peripheral
device;
a fingerprint-peripheral database configured to:
associate the particular wireless peripheral device
with the one or more WiFi fingerprints and detected timing
information about the usage of the particular wireless
peripheral device; and
store the association into the-fingerprint-peripheral
database.
2
Appeal2017-010680
Application 13/726,375
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Nakayasu
Lee
Han
US 2002/0051178 Al May 2, 2002
US 2012/0052817 Al Mar. 1, 2012
US 2012/0170560 Al July 5, 2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 19, 20, 22, 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Han.
Claims 10-13, 16, 17, 27, 28, and 31-34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Han, and Nakayasu.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Lee and Han discloses all the
limitations of independent claim 1. Final Act. 2--4. Appellants contend,
among other things, that the combination of Lee and Han fails to disclose
"associat[ing] the particular wireless peripheral device with the one or more
WiFi fingerprints and detected timing information about the usage of the
particular wireless peripheral device," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 27-31;
Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Lee describes controlling a mobile terminal based on usage patterns in
order to reduce battery consumption. Lee, Abstract. Specifically, a
"controller 180 may provide an interface ... capable of changing the
wireless communication unit to an active or inactive state based on a usage
pattern stored in the memory 160." Lee, i-f 87. For example, "controller 180
may acquire a current time" or "may acquire the current location information
3
Appeal2017-010680
Application 13/726,375
of the mobile terminal 100 from a signal received by the location
information module 115 or a location based server (LBS)," and provide an
interface for "changing the wireless communication unit to a status
corresponding to [a] current time or location information." Id. The status
information of the wireless communication unit is collected and stored in a
table that includes a DEVICE_ID field corresponding to a particular external
device to which the mobile terminal is connected at a particular time and
location. Lee, i-fi-f 120, 125. The Examiner finds Lee's external device
teaches a "wireless peripheral device," and Lee's DEVICE_ID field teaches
determining one or more "fingerprints" about a portable device, as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 12.
Han describes estimating the location of a mobile device present in a
means of transportation. Han, Abstract. In one embodiment, Han describes
preparing a stop-station fingerprint database that links a WiFi fingerprint at
each stop station with an ID of the stop-station, and recognizing, by the
mobile device, a stop station by comparing an acquired WiFi fingerprint
with the stop-station WiFi fingerprint in the database. Han, i-f l 7. The
Examiner relies on Han for teaching that the alleged one or more
fingerprints in Lee can be "WiFi fingerprints," as required by claim 1. Final
Act. 3--4. The Examiner, thus, finds Lee, in view of Han, teaches
"associat[ing] the particular wireless peripheral device with the one or more
WiFi fingerprints and detected timing information about the usage of the
particular wireless peripheral device," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act.
3--4; Ans. 16. In particular, the Examiner asserts, with respect to Lee, that
"'the external WIFI device' would read on the claimed 'peripheral device'
and the 'device_ID' of the external WIFI device would read on the claimed
'WiFi fingerprints."' Ans. 16.
4
Appeal2017-010680
Application 13/726,375
We find the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of Lee and
Han for disclosing the claim 1 limitation "associate the particular wireless
peripheral device with the one or more WiFi fingerprints." The
Specification provides "the portable device defines its location based, at
least in part, upon [a] signal fingerprint of ambient identifiable wireless
signal (IWS) sources observed at that location," where "[a]n example of an
IWS source[] is a wireless access point (WAP)." Spec. i-f 13. Or, put
another way, "WiFi fingerprinting involves memorizing a location based
upon the WAP 'fingerprint' of 'visible' WAPs and their observed signal
strengths." Spec. i-f 14. Claim 1 defines the "WiFi fingerprints" "at least in
part, by one or more observed ambient identifiable wireless signal (IWS)
sources about the portable device while the wireless-peripheral detector
detects the usage of a particular wireless peripheral device." Accordingly,
we find the broadest reasonable interpretation of "WiFi fingerprint" is the
observed signals from IWS sources at a particular location. Further, we
interpret claim 1 as requiring the "wireless peripheral device" be a distinct
element from the sources that define the "WiFi fingerprints" in claim 1,
because the "wireless-peripheral detector" and "WiFi-fingerprint
determiner" separately "detect a usage of a particular wireless peripheral
device" and "determine one or more WiFi fingerprints," respectively.
The Examiner, however, relies on Lee's external device and its own
DEVICE_ID for disclosing the "wireless peripheral device" and "WiFi
fingerprints" limitations. See Ans. 16. Accordingly, the Examiner has not
shown Lee teaches associating the external device with a fingerprint defined
by some other sources distinct from the external device, as required by claim
1. Further, Han fails to cure this deficiency of Lee, because while Han
5
Appeal2017-010680
Application 13/726,375
teaches a mobile device and a WiFi fingerprint, Han does not teach
associating a distinct "wireless peripheral device" with the WiFi fingerprint.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 10, 19, and 2 7
which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 11-
13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24--26, 28, and 31-34.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 16, 1 7, 19, 2 0,
22, 24--28, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 16,
17, 19, 20, 22, 24--28, and 31-34.
REVERSED
6