Siva Sandeep. Dhandu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

2018009222 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 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.
15/154,894 05/13/2016 Siva Sandeep Dhandu 20160290 4254
170054 7590 05/29/2020
VERIZON - AK
VERIZON PATENTING GROUP
1300 I STREET NW
SUITE 500 EAST
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 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):
VZPatent170054@verizon.com
docket@ak-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIVA SANDEEP DHANDU and YUK LUN LI
Appeal 2018-009222
Application 15/154,894
Technology Center 2600

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Verizon
Communications, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-009222
Application 15/154,894

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to conserving battery power of an Internet of
Things (IoT) tracker by increasing the overall amount of time that the IoT
tracker is in a battery conservation mode (a sleep mode, a Power Save Mode
(PSM), etc.). Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A tracker device, comprising:
a non-transitory memory device storing a plurality of
processor-executable instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the processor-
executable instructions, wherein executing the processor-
executable instructions causes the processor to:
determine a geographical location of the tracker device
and communicate the geographic location of the tracker device
to a wireless telecommunications network to which the tracker
device is connected;
receive a policy relating to conditions for entering into a
battery conservation mode in response to a specified trigger, the
specified trigger including the tracker device being within a
particular distance of a user device configured to monitor the
geographic location of the tracker device, and the battery
conservation mode including a mode of operation where the
tracker device conserves battery power, of the tracker device, by
refraining from determining the geographic location of the
tracker device and from communicating the geographic location
to the wireless telecommunications network;
monitor conditions corresponding to the specified trigger;
determine that the monitored conditions have satisfied the
specified trigger; and
enter, in response to a determination that the monitored
conditions have satisfied the specified trigger, into the battery
conservation mode.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2018-009222
Application 15/154,894

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Samardzija et al.
(“Samardzija”)
US 2016/0007288 A1 Jan. 7, 2016
Patel at al. (“Patel”) US 2016/0249174 A1 Aug. 25, 2016
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Samardzija. Final Act. 2.
Claims 2–4, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, 16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Samardzija and
Patel. Final Act. 5.
ISSUE
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Samardzija discloses a
tracker device comprising a processor configured to “receive a policy
relating to conditions for entering into a battery conservation mode in
response to a specified trigger, the specified trigger including the tracker
device being within a particular distance of a user device configured to . . .
enter . . . into the battery conservation mode,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Samardzija discloses each
limitation recited in the claim. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 4. Relevant to the issue
before us, the Examiner finds Samardzija discloses a processor entering a
Appeal 2018-009222
Application 15/154,894

4
battery conservation mode control circuit when the specified trigger is
satisfied. Final Act. 3 (citing Samardzija Fig. 1, ¶¶ 18, 46, 47).
Appellant emphasizes the independent claims are directed to a tracker
device that conserves battery power by entering a battery conservation mode
under certain circumstances, such as when the tracker device is close to a
user device. Appeal Br. 8, citing Spec. ¶ 19. Appellant argues Samardzija
teaches the opposite—that a device remains in sleep mode until a wireless
terminal is close to the device and then exits the sleep mode when the
wireless terminal is within the range of the device. Appeal Br. 8–9, citing
Samardzija ¶¶ 18, 46, 64. We agree with Appellant.
Samardzija discloses an IoT device with an “active reception mode”
during which the IoT device communicates via a short-range wireless
communication interface. Samardzija ¶ 46. Samardzija further discloses the
IoT device may be configured to utilize a “sleep mode” during which “the
wireless transceiver 111 of the IoT device 110 is not active and . . . not
operable to communicate . . . using [a] wireless transceiver.” Samardzija
¶ 47. Samardzija describes that a “trigger condition” occurs when the IoT
device detects a presence notification signal from a cellular terminal (“CT”),
and in response to that trigger condition, the IoT device exits the sleep mode
and enters active communication with the CT. Id. Thus, we agree with
Appellant that Samardzija discloses an IoT device which conserves power
when not in proximity to another device, and enters a higher power usage
mode when in range of the cellular terminal.
Appeal 2018-009222
Application 15/154,894

5
As such, for the reasons argued by Appellant, the Examiner erred in
rejecting the independent claims 1, 9, and 172 under § 102(a)(2), and we do
not sustain the rejection. Because we have reversed the rejection of each of
the independent claims we also reverse the rejection of dependent clams 2,
5, 6, 10, 13, 14, and 18 in this rejection.
Rejection under § 103
Claims 2–4, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, 16, 18–20 are rejected under § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Samardzija and Patel. The
Examiner makes no findings with respect to Patel that cure the deficiencies
identified in Samardzija. Nor does the Examiner provide any explanation
for how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified
Samardzija to cure the deficiency in Samardzija identified above and thereby
achieve the claimed invention. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
these claims under § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Samardzija and Patel.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

2 We note claim 17 is missing from the § 102(a)(2) rejection heading, but is
included in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-009222
Application 15/154,894

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13, 14,
17, 18
102(a)(2) Samardzija 1, 2, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13, 14, 17,
18
2–4,7, 8,
10–12, 15,
16, 18–20
103 Samardzija, Patel 2–4, 7, 8,
10–12, 15, 16,
18–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED