MITEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 19, 20202020000822 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2020) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation