Ex Parte Trappeniers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

11842924 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
11/842,924 08/21/2007 Lieven Leopold Albertine TRAPPENIERS LUTZ 200620 4177
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
HUANG, WEN WU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
docketing @ faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIEVEN LEOPOLD ALBERTINE and MARC
BRUNO FRIEDA GODON
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11—20, 22, and 23. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 11—14, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
obvious over Brown et al. (US 2009/0088077 Al; Apr. 2, 2009) and
Zilliacus (US 2006/0199533 Al; Sept. 7, 2006). Final Act. 2-7.
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
Claims 15—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Brown, Zilliacus, and Idani et al. (US 2004/0248514 Al; Dec. 9, 2004).
Final Act. 7—9.
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention “relates to interactive sessions between smart
artefacts, e.g. public displays, whiteboards or billboards, and user terminals
such as mobile phones, PDAs, laptops, etc.” Spec. 1:6—8. Claim 11 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
11. A user terminal operative to initiate an interactive
session with a smart artefact, the user terminal comprising:
a short range interface configured to explicitly select,
from among a plurality of smart artefacts within a zone in
which the short range interface is active, a smart artefact with
which to establish an interactive session;
a long range interface configured to continue the
interactive session beyond the zone in which the short range
interface is active;
an integrated handover processor configured to transfer
the interactive session from the short range interface to the long
range interface for continuing the interactive session through
the long range interface, wherein the short range interface
includes a haptic or tactile interface to initiate the interactive
session.
2
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 11-14,20,22, and 23 over
Brown and Zilliacus
Claims 11—14
The Examiner finds that Brown and Zilliacus teach all limitations of
claim 11. Final Act. ?>—4.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Brown discloses the user presenting a mobile phone or the like
to an access gate associated with a communications apparatus.
Brown does not indicate that the mobile phone selects between
multiple access gates associated with communication
apparatuses. It is likely that multiple such smart artefacts (access
gates) are found in close physical proximity at a transit station
such as described in Brown (paragraph 0169). Ostensibly, Brown
fails to disclose that the user terminal (e.g. mobile phone) is
within the zone of operation of the short range interfaces of
multiple smart artefacts, and explicitly selects one of them with
which to begin an interactive session. Instead, it seems Brown
discloses the user terminal being presented to only one smart
artefact and thus never having the opportunity to select between
artefacts as recited in claim 11.
App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3^4.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner finds Brown teaches the recited (claim 11) “a short
range interface configured to explicitly select, from among a plurality of
smart artefacts within a zone in which the short range interface is active, a
smart artefact with which to establish an interactive session.” Final Act. 3
(citing Brown || 55, 169); see also Ans. 2—3. We agree with and adopt this
finding as our own. Brown (| 55) discloses a short-range wireless radio-
frequency communicator 1301a. Brown (| 169) discloses:
3
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
As shown in FIG. 26, when a user 5 presents their dual action
communications apparatus 6 embodying the invention to an
access gate 7 associated with a communications apparatus 8 (for
example comprising an NFC/RFID reader), the controller of the
communications apparatus 6 will, in response to RF
communication received from the short range wireless radio
frequency communicator of the communications apparatus 8,
and [sic] instruct its short range wireless radio frequency
communicator to function in accordance with data and protocols
appropriate to the access gate (this data and protocols may be
provided by a further functionality module or feature, for
example the further functionality 2620 shown in FIG. 23) so that
to the access gate’s reader the dual action communications
apparatus will appear as a traditional RFID device/RFID ticket
and, provided the modulated signal supplied by the
communications apparatus 6 is verified by the access gate’s
reader, permission to travel will be provided by the access gate’s
reader.
Thus, Brown discloses (claim 11) “a short range interface configured
to explicitly select,” (Brown’s communications apparatus 6 (see Brown |
155), Brown’s short-range wireless radio-frequency communicator 1301a
(see Brown | 55)) “from among a plurality of smart artefacts within a zone
in which the short range interface is active,” (Brown’s user selects a
particular access gate 7 (see Brown 1169)) “a smart artefact with which to
establish an interactive session” (Brown’s access gate 7 associated with
communications apparatus 8 (see Brown 1169)).
In reaching our decision, we emphasize that Brown suggests multiple
access gates are found in close physical proximity at a transit station (see
Brown 1169; see also App. Br. 6). We find that such multiple access gates
are within a zone in which Brown’s communications apparatus 6 is active.
That is, the recited “zone” is broader than the recited “short range” of the
“short-range interface.”
4
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, as well as
claims 12—14, which are not separately argued with particularity.
Claims 20, 22, and 23
The Examiner finds that the combination of Brown and Zilliacus
teaches all limitations of claim 20. Final Act. 6—7.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Zilliacus (e.g. paragraph 61) fails to disclose that the long range
interface that will be used is determined during a negotiation
cycle between the smart artefact and the user terminal. The cited
portions of Zilliacus recite no such negotiation cycle; they fail to
even mention selecting a long range interface. Instead they are
concerned with an item of user equipment traversing service
points (short range interfaces) associated with the various stores
in a shopping mall as the user travels through the mall. There is
no indication that the user equipment is ever hand[ed] off to a
long range[] interface during this process.
App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5 (“Zilliacus is silent as to agreeing on the
particular type of long range communication that will be used for the
interactive session.”)
We are persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding
Zilliacus teaches the recited (claim 20) “wherein the long range interface
that will be used is determined during a negotiation cycle between the smart
artefact and the user terminal.”
The Examiner finds Zilliacus teaches the recited (claim 20) “wherein
the long range interface that will be used is determined during a negotiation
cycle between the smart artefact and the user terminal.” Final Act. 7 (citing
Zilliacus 1 61); see also Ans. 4 (“Fig. 7, para. [0061] discloses a firewall
cycle 702 (aka negotiation cycle) wherein if the service point 106, 700, is
5
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
trusted, it is agreed upon that Bluetooth interface 406 will be used for
downloading] the bookmark.”).
Zilliacus (161) discloses:
Firewall 226 may then check the identification of the service
point in step 702 to verity whether the service point identification
number corresponds to a trusted service provider and/or whether
the user has indicated that the content of the service point should
be excluded. If the service point is excluded, the bookmark is
not downloaded and the connection to the service point is severed
in step 704. Alternatively, the communication is permitted and
the bookmark is downloaded to a temporary buffer in step 706.
Thus, Zilliacus does not disclose (claim 20) “wherein the long range
interface that will be used is determined during a negotiation cycle between
the smart artefact and the user terminal” because, to the extent Bluetooth 406
is used, Bluetooth is disclosed as a short range interface as opposed to a long
range interface. See Zilliacus 40, 42. Further, Zilliacus’s firewall cycle
702 (Fig. 7) does not disclose a negotiation cycle during which an interface
is determined.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20, or
of claims 22 and 23, which depend from claim 20.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 15-19 over Brown, Zilliacus,
and Idani
The Examiner finds that the combination of Brown, Zilliacus, and
Idani teaches all limitations of claim 15. Final Act. 8—9.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
[T]he cited portions of Zilliacus and Brown fail to show
authenticating over a long range communication network or
service while connected to a smart artefact over the short range
interface. Brown (paragraph 131; Fig. 15a) discusses a user
6
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
terminal being connected over a long range communication
network. Zilliacus (paragraph 61; Fig. 7) discusses a user
terminal connected over a short range interface. The cited
portions of ldani disclose, at most, merely exchanging
parameters between interfaces. However, there is no indication
from the cited portions of the references that the establishment
of a packet data session over a long range interface and
connection over a short range interface occur simultaneously.
Additionally, Brown (e.g. paragraph 131) fails to disclose
authentication while connected to a smart artefact over the short
range interface. Brown seems to indicate a short range
connection between two mobile phones, or similar items of user
equipment, and connection between one item of user equipment
and a smart artefact over a long range interface.
App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4 (“There is no mention in paragraph 0132 of
Brown of authentication, only data transfer”).
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner finds Brown teaches the recited (claim 15)
“simultaneously performing a packet data session establishment procedure
over the long range interface while remaining connected over the short range
interface.” Final Act. 8 (citing Brown 1132); see also Ans. 3. We agree
with and adopt this finding as our own. Brown (| 132) discloses:
When the initialisation procedure is complete, then, at S2506 the
controller of the communications apparatus 1500 initiates data
communication to and/or from the data store 1315 via the high­
speed data transceiver 1314. While this data transfer is taking
place, power is maintained at the communications apparatus
1500 operating in tag mode (and therefore for the data transfer)
via the inductive coupling provided between the in-range short
range wireless radio frequency communicators.
Thus, Brown teaches (claim 15) “simultaneously performing a packet
data session establishment procedure over the long range interface”
7
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
(Brown’s data transfer (see Brown 1132)) “while remaining connected over
the short range interface” (Brown’s maintaining power at the
communications apparatus operating in tag mode (see Brown 1132)).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Brown and Zilliacus
teaches the recited (claim 15) “authenticating” (Brown 1131, Fig. 15a,
S2505.) “[authenticating] over a long range communication network or
service” (Zilliacus 1 61, Fig. 7, 702, 708.) “while connected to a smart
artefact over the short range interface” (Brown 1131, Fig. 15a, S2505.).
Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 3 (citing Brown 1132). We agree with and adopt
these findings as our own.
Brown (H 131—132) discloses an initialization procedure over the
short range interface followed by data transfer over the long range interface
while remaining connected over the short range interface. Thus, Brown
discloses data transfer over a long range communication network “while
connected to a smart artefact over the short range interface.” Brown does
not explicitly state that authentication takes place over the long range
communication network.
Zilliacus (161) discloses authentication over a long range
communication network. Thus, when Brown is modified in light of
Zilliacus’s teachings, Brown’s system authenticates over the long range
communication network. Therefore, the combined teachings of Brown and
Zilliacus suggest the argued limitations. We concur with the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness, which is supported by articulated reasoning with
a rational underpinning. See Final Act. 9.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, as well as
claims 16—19, which are not separately argued with particularity.
8
Appeal 2016-003735
Application 11/842,924
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11—19 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20, 22, and 23 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9