Proton World International N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2020005722 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021)

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