Ex Parte Teuwen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 201713855621 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2017) 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. 13/855,621 04/02/2013 Philippe Teuwen 81533453US01 9914 65913 7590 11/09/2017 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 EXAMINER TRAIL, ALLYSON NEEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2876 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/09/2017 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): ip. department .u s @ nxp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIPPE TEUWEN and CEDRIC COLNOT Appeal 2016-007217 Application 13/855,621 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over at least the basic combination of Yin (US 2009/0179817 Al, Jul. 16, 2009) in view of Horton (US 2011/0314539 Al, Dec. 22, 2011).2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, NXP B.V., which, according to the Appeal Brief is the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1). 2 While the Examiner applies various additional prior art to reject dependent claims 4, 8, 9, and 11 (Final Action 5, 6), Appellant does not present any Appeal 2016-007217 Application 13/855,621 Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention: 1. A smart card comprising: control logic; a contact interface coupled to the control logic; a contactless interface coupled to the control logic; and a BLUETOOTH™ Low Energy (BLE) interface coupled to the control logic, wherein the control logic is configured to select one of the contact interface and the contactless interface of the smart card for coupling to the BLE interface and select an appropriate communication protocol dependent on which interface is present at a point of sale device. (Emphasis added). Appellant presents arguments that focus on independent claim 1 (see App. Br., Reply Br. generally). ANALYSIS We have reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability. Having done so, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that the claimed subject matter of representative claim 1 is unpatentable within the meaning of § 103. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Final Action and Answer, including the Examiner’s Response to Argument section, and we add the following primarily 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 additional arguments, relying solely on the arguments made with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 6—9). 2 Appeal 2016-007217 Application 13/855,621 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. Appellant’s main argument is that Yin does not “select an appropriate communication protocol dependent on which interface is present at a point of sale device” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2, 3)* * 3 (emphasis omitted). These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. As aptly pointed out by the Examiner, the claim language does reasonably encompass the applied prior art as Yin teaches when the induction card (e.g., smart card) contacts a card reader, the chip therein will determine whether the interface is a contact card reader or a non-contact card reader so as to select the proper communication protocol (Ans. 7, 8). Contrary to Appellant’s position, we agree with the Examiner that the language of the claim reasonably encompasses the applied prior art as applied by the Examiner (id.). Appellant de facto admits in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has made a “broadest possible interpretation” of the claim language (Reply Br. 2), but argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that a “communication protocol” allows two or more entities of a communications system to exchange information, whereas “contact” and “non-contact” are opposite ways of exchanging information rather than different systems of rules (Reply Br. 2). The Appellant presents these new arguments regarding the 3 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s determination that Horton exemplifies the obviousness of using a BLE interface (App. Br. generally). 3 Appeal 2016-007217 Application 13/855,621 limitations of claim 1 at pages 2—3 of the Reply Brief. The Appellant has not shown good cause why these arguments could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, we need not consider the arguments newly raised in the Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Nonetheless, Appellant has not directed our attention to any limiting definitions in the Specification, or to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence,4 to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation of the language of claim 1 is unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. No further substantive arguments were made regarding the remaining § 103 rejections. Thus, we affirm all of the § 103 rejections of claims 1—12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. ORDER AFFIRMED 4 We decline to consider Appellant’s newly proffered “'for example” definitions of “protocol” and “communication protocols” (Reply Br. 2), as untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation