MITEL NETWORKS CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2020

14803201 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2020)

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.
14/803,201 07/20/2015 Peter M. Hillier 877 5784
40604 7590 10/19/2020
MITEL NETWORKS CORP. c/o MICHELLE WHITTINGTON
PERRY + CURRIER INC. (FOR MITEL)
1146 N ALMA SCHOOL ROAD
BLD B
MESA, AZ 85201
EXAMINER
GALT, CASSI J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2020 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):
iplegal@mitel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER M. HILLIER
____________

Appeal 2020-000822
Application 14/803,201
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Oct. 22, 2018, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–5, 12–14, and 17–25.2 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Mitel Networks Corporation is identified as the real party
in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed June 7, 2019, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 6–11, 15, and 16 are canceled. Appeal Br. 17, 18 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000822
Application 14/803,201

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates “to a system and method for providing
location information and information defining movement of a mobile device
through an indoor environment.” Spec. para 1.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of providing location information to a mobile
device, comprising:
providing a fixed device having stored apparatus
identification information;
providing at least one location beacon integrated with or
in proximity to the fixed device capable of transmitting signals;
using the fixed device, determining a location of the
fixed device based on the apparatus identification information;
transmitting, using the fixed device, the location of the
fixed device to the at least one location beacon; and
the at least one location beacon transmitting the location
information to a mobile device capable of receiving location
information,
wherein a user can determine, using the mobile device, a
user’s location based on the location information.

REJECTIONS

I. The Examiner rejects claims 2–4, 6, 12–14, 17, 18, and 22–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
Appeal 2020-000822
Application 14/803,201

3

II. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 12–14, 17, 18, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu.3
III. The Examiner rejects claims 19–21 and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Liu and Byrne.4
V. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Liu, Byrne, and Mendelson.5
VI. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Liu and Mendelson.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant has not addressed the indefiniteness rejection of claims 2–4,
6, 12–14, 17, 18, and 22–25. See Appeal Br. 4, 8. Accordingly, Appellant
has waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of
these claims. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the
substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground
of rejection).

3 Liu et al., US 2015/0334548 A1, published Nov. 19, 2015.
4 Byrne et al., US 6,539,382 B1, issued Mar. 25, 2003.
5 Mendelson, US 9,204,251 B1, issued Dec. 1, 2015.
Appeal 2020-000822
Application 14/803,201

4

Rejection II
Claims 1 and 12
Each of independent claims 1 and 12 requires, inter alia, a location
beacon that receives location information of a fixed device from the fixed
device and transmits the location information to a mobile device. See
Appeal Br. 17, 18 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Liu discloses, inter alia, a fixed device
104/108 or 204/206 having “UUID, major, and minor” identification values
related to location information (the major value indicates a “specified
geolocation area” of a store) and a location proximity beacon transmitter
PBT 222 “integrated with” fixed device 204/206 that retrieves from Beacon
Content 220 the location information of fixed device 204/206 and transmits
its location information to mobile devices PBR 116/226. Final Act. 7–8
(citing Liu, paras. 37, 38, 72–74, Figs. 1, 2).
Appellant argues that Liu does not disclose “a method or system for
providing location information in which a location beacon both receives and
transmits (or is capable of receiving and transmitting) location information
of a fixed device.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). According to
Appellant, “Liu’s disclosed beacon transmitters only transmit location
information with respect to the beacons themselves.” Id. In other words,
Appellant contends that Liu’s location beacon does not transmit location
information related to a fixed device, but rather location information related
to the beacon itself. Id. Pointing to Liu’s Figures 1 and 2, Appellant asserts
that “the transmitted signals such as a UUID, major value, or minor value,
are signals associated exclusively with the [proximity beacon transmitter]
PBT” 108 in Figure 1 and “Figure 2 does not contemplate beacons capable
Appeal 2020-000822
Application 14/803,201

5

of transmitting location information of devices other than beacons, such as
fixed devices.” Id. at 11–12. Moreover, Appellant takes the position that
“[t]here is no disclosure in Liu of a fixed device that determines its own
location information, which is then transmitted.” Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because such
arguments are not commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection. In
particular, we agree with the Examiner that “[t]he rejections identify the
combination of network device 104/204 and network device-coupled PBT
108/206 (Figs. 1-2) as the claimed fixed device, and PBT 222 (Fig. 2) as the
claimed location beacon.” Examiner’s Answer (dated Sept. 10, 2019,
hereinafter “Ans.”) 4 (citing Liu, para. 36)6 (emphasis added). Hence, in the
Examiner’s rejection, Liu’s location beacon PBT 222 is “integrated with”
fixed device 104/108 or 204/206. See id. at 5; see also Liu, Fig. 2.
Accordingly, as “apparatus identification information (‘UUID, major,
and minor’) [is] stored in ‘Beacon Content’ 220,” which is part of fixed
device 204/206, Liu discloses “location information of the fixed device.”
Ans. 5. Therefore, Liu’s fixed device 204/206 determines its location
information when integrated location beacon PBT retrieves identification
information (“iBEACONTM”; “UUID, major, and minor”) from Beacon
Content 220 and transmits such information to mobile devices PBR 226.
See Liu, paras. 38, 72–74, Fig. 2. Accordingly, in contrast to Appellant’s
position, because Liu’s location beacon PBT 222 is “integrated with” fixed

6 “In an alternative, the network device-coupled PBT 108 can be
implemented onto a memory device or as a printed circuit board (PCB) or
other fixed, slotted/removable, embedded or external hardware component
that could be considered part of or incorporated into the network device
104.”
Appeal 2020-000822
Application 14/803,201

6

device 204/206, beacon PBT 222 receives and transmits location
information of fixed device 204/206. See Reply Brief (filed Nov. 11, 2019,
hereinafter “Reply Br.”) 3.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Liu
cannot teach transmitting location information that is derived from a device
different from the beacon itself” when “204 and 206 form a single device”
because, as discussed above, Liu’s location beacon PBT 222 is “integrated
with” device 204/206. See id. at 2. Such an interpretation is consistent with
the explicit claim language of “at least one location beacon integrated with
. . . the fixed device,” as per claim 1, or “at least one beacon . . . integrated
with the fixed device,” as per claim 12.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) of independent claims 1 and 12 as anticipated
by Liu.

Claims 3, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 22
Appellant relies on the same unpersuasive arguments discussed supra.
See Appeal Br. 14. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we
likewise sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 3, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 22.

Rejections III–VI
Appellant relies on the same unpersuasive arguments discussed supra.
See Appeal Br. 14–15. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above,
we also sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 19–21 and
23–25 as unpatentable over Liu; of claim 2 as unpatentable over Liu and
Appeal 2020-000822
Application 14/803,201

7

Byrne; of claim 4 as unpatentable over Liu, Byrne, and Mendelson; and of
claim 5 as unpatentable over Liu and Mendelson.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
2–4, 6, 12–14,
17, 18, 22–25
112(b) Indefinite 2–4, 6, 12–14,
17, 18, 22–25

1, 3, 12–14,
17, 18, 22
102(a)(2) Liu 1, 3, 12–14, 17,
18, 22

19–21, 23–25 103 Liu 19–21, 23–25
2 103 Liu, Byrne 2
4 103 Liu, Byrne,
Mendelson
4
5 103 Liu,
Mendelson
5
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 12–14,
17–25

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED