Ex Parte Agardh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14364054 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/364,054 06/09/2014 KareAgardh
23380 7590 09/26/2018
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 MAIN A VENUE
SUITE 1100
CLEVELAND, OH 44113-7213
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PS13 1526US1 1357
EXAMINER
LEE, ANDREW CHUNG CHEUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
patents@tuckerellis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATEN AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KA.RE AGARDH and ANDERS MELLQVIST
Appeal2018-003716
Application 14/364,054
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, JOHN A. EV ANS, and STEVEN M.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 18-35. Claims App'x; Final Act.
Summary. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sony Mobile
Communications AB. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief ( filed September 7, 2017, "Appeal Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed February 14, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
(mailed December 18, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed January 23,
2017, "Final Act)," and the Specification (filed June 9, 2014, "Spec.") for
Appeal2018-003716
Application 14/364,054
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method for facilitating service by a wireless
terminal. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 18 and 27 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 18, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
18. A method of facilitating service usage by a wireless
terminal, the method being implemented by a Bluetooth low
energy (BLE) beacon comprising:
obtaining service information describing a service
available via a non-BLE wireless connection to a wireless
access point;
obtaining connectivity information for establishing the
non-BLE wireless connection, for utilizing the service via the
non-BLE wireless connection, or both; and
periodically broadcasting the service information and
connectivity information via BLE transmissions to a wireless
terminal that lacks the non-BLE wireless connection.
Heinonen, et al.,
Palin, et al.,
their respective details.
References and Rejections
US 2003/0I 12789Al June 19, 2003 3
US 2014/0194062 Al July 10, 2014
3 Heinonen was filed November 1, 2001. Heinonen, cover page no. 22.
2
Appeal2018-003716
Application 14/364,054
1. Claims 18-21, 23-30, and 32-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Heinonen. Final Act. 2-6.
2. Claims 22 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Heinonen and Palin. Final Act. 6-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 18-35 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants'
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-11.
CLAIMS 18-21, 23-30, AND 32-35: ANTICIPATION BY HEINONEN.
Independent Claims 18 and 27
Bluetooth Standard.
Claim 18 recites, inter alia, "a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) beacon
... periodically broadcasting the service information and connectivity
information via BLE transmissions to a wireless terminal." Claim 27
similarly recites a "Bluetooth low energy (BLE) beacon" and "BLE
transmissions." Appellants note the terms "Bluetooth low energy" and
"BLE" are entirely absent from Heinonen. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants assert
that, as of its November 1, 2001 filing date, it was impossible for Heinonen
to provide any disclosure regarding a BLE transmission because such
transmissions were not defined in any Bluetooth standard until at least a
decade later. Id.
The Examiner does not dispute Appellants' assertion that Heinonen
fails to recite either "Bluetooth low energy" or "BLE." See Ans. 3-5.
3
Appeal2018-003716
Application 14/364,054
Rather, the Examiner refers to Heinonen's disclosure of the February 22,
2001 Bluetooth 1.1 Specification and "contends the reference Heinonen et al
indeed disclosed all the limitations as taught in Claim 18." Id. at 4.
Appellants contend BLE and "classic Bluetooth" are completely
different standards and that BLE uses different physical and logical
properties and a different protocol stack than does classic Bluetooth. Reply
Br. 1-2 ( citing Spec., col. 2, 11. 20-26). Appellants disclose:
Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) is one of the latest enhancements
to the Bluetooth® specifications, and in the past was known as
Wibree and Ultra Low Power (ULP). As detailed in the
Bluetooth 4.0 and later specifications, BLE utilizes power
efficient transmissions with short data packets that facilitate
low power consumption. To accomplish this, BLE uses
different physical and logical properties, as well as a different
protocol stack, than so-called "classic Bluetooth."
Spec., col. 2, 11. 20-25.
In contrast to Appellants' disclosure of the Bluetooth 4.0 standard,
Heinonen discloses a Bluetooth 1.1 standard:
Bluetooth is a short range radio network, originally intended as
a cable replacement. It can be used to create networks of up to
eight devices operating together. The Bluetooth Special
Interest Group, Specification Of The Bluetooth System,
Volumes 1 and 2, Core and Profiles: Version 1.1, Feb. 22,
2001, describes the principles of Bluetooth device operation
and communication protocols.
Heinonen, ,r 5. We discern no evidence to refute the Specification's
disclosure that the claimed BLE protocol employs different physical and
logical structures than the legacy Bluetooth standard. In view thereof, we
determine that the Examiner has failed to identify sufficient evidence that
4
Appeal2018-003716
Application 14/364,054
independent Claims 18 and 27, and the claims dependent thereupon, are
anticipated by Heinonen.
CLAIMS 22 AND 31: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEINONEN AND PALIN.
Appellants contend Palin fails to cure the deficiencies of Heinonen.
Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner does not apply Palin in a manner that is
relevant to the foregoing discussion. In view of the foregoing, we decline to
sustain the rejection of Claims 22 and 31.
DECISION
The rejections of Claims 18-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
REVERSED.
REVERSED
5