Proton World International N.V.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 15, 20212020005722 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021) 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. 15/258,884 09/07/2016 Olivier Van Nieuwenhuyze 15ZV20618US01/852563.413 6421 38106 7590 12/15/2021 Seed IP Law Group LLP/STMicroelectronics 701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092 EXAMINER KASSIM, KHALED M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2021 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): USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com pairlinkdktg@seedip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLIVIER VAN NIEUWENHUYZE, FRANK CUYPERS, and PATRICK DUMOULIN Appeal 2020-005722 Application 15/258,884 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, 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, 3–9, 11–19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 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 Proton World International NV. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005722 Application 15/258,884 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method, comprising: [A]. detecting, by a contactless communication circuit operating in card mode and hosting at least two applications compatible with different communication protocols, initiation of a first anticollision process by a proximity coupling device reader; and [B]. responding, by the contactless communication circuit, to the detection of the first anticollision process by transmitting two communication protocol identifiers to cause detection of a collision by the proximity coupling device reader; and [C]. responding, by the contactless communication circuit, to a second anticollision process following the first anticollision process by transmitting a single communication protocol identifier selected according to a protocol used by the first anticollision process. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Levy US 2012/0178366 A1 July 12, 2012 Zhongzhi CN 104392192 A March 4, 2015 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhongzhi and Levy. Final Act. 3–7. Appeal 2020-005722 Application 15/258,884 3 We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 3–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–9); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–6) in response to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. The Examiner found the combination of Zhongzhi and Levy teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 3–5. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. More specifically, the Examiner found that Zhongzhi discloses a contactless card configured to generate two or more unique identifiers corresponding to a communication protocol, send the two or more generated unique identifier to a card terminal, and, in response to a message carrying a unique identifier selected by the card terminal, establish a communication protocol with the card reader according to the selected unique identifier. See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Zhongzhi 6:19–24, 7:10–25, 8:11–12); see also Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that Zhongzhi’s contactless card teaches or suggests, inter alia, a “contactless communication circuit operating in [a] card mode,” performing the operations recited in limitations [B] and [C] of Appeal 2020-005722 Application 15/258,884 4 claim 1, as referenced above in the “Claimed Subject Matter” section. See Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 4. Although the Examiner conceded Zhongzhi does not explicitly disclose that the contactless card “host[s] at least two applications,” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner found that Levy teaches or suggests this limitation. See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4–5. More specifically, the Examiner found Levy discloses a contactless device (i.e., credit card) that manages multiple Near Field Communication (“NFC”) applications for multiple execution environments. See Final Act. 4 (citing Levy ¶¶ 19, 25, 26, Fig. 2); see also Ans. 4–5 (citing Levy ¶¶ 25, 26, Fig. 2). The Examiner further found a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the contactless card of Zhongzhi to host at least two applications as taught by Levy, in light of Levy’s suggestion that enabling multiple NFC applications would allow a device, such as a mobile handset, to have increased functionality, such as multiple credit card emulations transportation tokens/tickets, access badges, keys to restricted locations, etc. See Final Act. 4 (citing Levy ¶ 9); see also Ans. 5 (citing Levy ¶ 9). Appellant argues the combination of Zhongzhi and Levy fails to disclose or suggest “a contactless communication circuit operating in a card mode” performing limitations [B] and [C] of claim 1, as referenced above in the “Claimed Subject Matter” section. See Appeal Br. 17–20. More specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner erroneously “points to the reader of Zhongzhi as allegedly corresponding to the recited contactless communication circuit.” Appeal Br. 17. As argued by Appellant, “[t]he contactless communication circuit operating in card mode as recited also behaves differently than the terminal . . . disclosed in Zhongzhi, which merely follows the reader of Zhongzhi, and does not respond as recited to Appeal 2020-005722 Application 15/258,884 5 the detection of the first and second anticollision processes.” Id.; see also Appeal Br. 18–20. In its Reply Brief, Appellant further argues “the Examiner appears to conflate the reader and card of Zhongzhi and argue that the reader and card collectively perform the recited process,” where “the claims recite specific actions to be performed by a device when it is operating in card mode, and Zhongzhi’s operation of a separate card allegedly performing the recited actions of the reader does not disclose or render obvious” claim 1. Reply Br. 2. This argument is not persuasive. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Zhongzhi discloses that it is the contactless card, rather than the terminal, that generates two or more unique identifiers corresponding to a communication protocol, sends the two or more generated unique identifiers to the terminal, receives a unique identifier selected by the terminal, and selects a communication protocol consistent with the unique identifier selected by the terminal. See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Zhongzhi 6:19–24, 7:10–16); see also Ans. 4 (“Zhongzhi clearly discloses that the above features are performed by a contactless communication circuit that is operating in a card mode” (emphasis added)). Thus, Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. Appellant further argues the Examiner has failed to sufficiently show a motivation to combine Zhongzhi and Levy. See Appeal Br. 20. This argument is not persuasive either. In this case, the Examiner has provided a rationale as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system disclosed in Zhongzhi to allow the contact circuit to host at least two applications (i.e., Levy suggests such a modification because multiple NFC applications may be enabled, configured Appeal 2020-005722 Application 15/258,884 6 or uploaded at the same time on a mobile handset). See Final Act. 4 (citing Levy ¶ 9); see also Ans. 5 (citing Levy ¶ 9). CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 103 Zhongzhi, Levy 1, 3–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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