Siva Sandeep. Dhandu et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 202015154894 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation