Ex Parte Boyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

11476064 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

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.
11/476,064 06/28/2006 David Gray Boyer 3655/0251PUS3 3218
47827 7590 11/26/2014
Avaya by MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, P.C.
4000 LEGATO ROAD, SUITE 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
VIANA DI PRISCO, GERMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID GRAY BOYER and KEVIN J. NELSON
____________

Appeal 2012-007337
Application 11/476,064
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 9–15, 21, and 26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. (App. Br.
3).

2 Claims 1–8, 16–20, 22, and 23 have been cancelled and claims 24 and 25
have been indicated as allowable.
Appeal 2012-007337
Application 11/476,064

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to establishing one or more
communication rules for a mobile communication device based
on a recognized context or environment where the mobile communication
device is located (see Spec. ¶ 2).
Claim 9 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
9. A method of determining a context of a mobile
communication device comprising:
without user input, automatically scanning for an RFID
tag in a local environment using an interrogator of the mobile
communication device;
reading an RFID code from a located RFID tag; and
changing at least one operation parameter of the mobile
communication device based upon the read code,
wherein the mobile communication device transmits at
least a portion of the read RFID code to a service provider and
the service provider changes the operation parameter of the
mobile communication device at a service provider level based
on the transmitted at least a portion of the read RFID code
received by the service provider.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 11–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Schotten (US 7,426,197 B2; Sept. 16, 2008;
effectively filed Nov. 24, 2004). (Ans. 4–6).
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schotten and Logan (US 2005/0153729 A1; July 14,
2005) (Ans. 6), claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schotten (Ans. 6–7), claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
Appeal 2012-007337
Application 11/476,064

3
unpatentable over Patel (US 2006/0208888 A1; Sept. 21, 2006; filed Mar. 4,
2005) (Ans. 7–8), and claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Patel and Taylor (US 2006/0028343 A1; Feb. 9, 2006)
(Ans. 8–9).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
Claim 9
Appellants acknowledge “Schotten can set a call forwarding
destination, and this may take place at a service provider level” (App. Br. 5
(citing Schotten, col. 9, ll. 16–17)). However, Appellants contend “this
setting of a call forwarding destination does not take place based on the
transmitted at least a portion of the read RFID code received by the service
provider as recited in claim 9” (id.). Appellants conclude Schotten does not
teach “making a service provider level change based on a received RFID
code” (id.).
The Examiner responds:
Schotten discloses in column 10, lines 1-4 that the transponder
105 transmits an answer signal 130 that includes the
identification120 of the transponder 105 to the wireless device
110; and in column 10, lines 24-36, Schotten further discloses
that upon receiving the answer signal 130 the wireless device
determines its location by looking up the corresponding
transponder identification (corresponding to the claimed RFID
code) within location database 300. The location database 300
may be stored within the location server 160 of the wireless
communication network 150, and the processor 225 may direct
the wireless device 110 to access the location information 300
Appeal 2012-007337
Application 11/476,064

4
by contacting the location server 160, Therefore the wireless
device 10 needs to transmit the transponder identification to the
location server 160.
(Ans. 9–10). The Examiner further finds call forwarding function is one of
the actions performed by the wireless device in response to the control
information 320 that is included in the location database 300 and controls
different operating functions of the wireless device based on its location
(Ans. 10, see Schotten, col. 8, ll. 37–40). The Examiner concludes that
Schotten anticipates the subject matter of claim 9, because call forwarding
takes place at a service provider level (Ans. 10).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion and adopt
them as our own. We further observe that storing the location database 300
within the location server 160 of the wireless communication network places
the control information 320 in such network server, which in turn, initiates
call forwarding to change the operation parameter of the wireless device 110
based on the transponder identification (see also Schotten, col. 10, ll. 60–
67). Additionally, contrary to Appellants’ contention that the call
forwarding of Schotten is unrelated to the location (Reply Br. 2), Schotten
teaches that call forwarding takes place in response to the control
information included in the location database (Schotten, col. 8, ll. 65–67 and
col. 9, ll. 16–17).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 9, as well as claims 11–
14 that are not argued separately (see App. Br. 5), under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Schotten.
Appeal 2012-007337
Application 11/476,064

5
Claims 10 and 15
Appellants’ arguments are focused on the failure of the proposed
modifications to Schotten or the teachings of Logan to overcome the alleged
deficiencies of Schotten (App. Br. 5–6). For the same reasons discussed
above for claim 9, we also sustain the rejections of claim 10 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schotten alone or in
combination with Logan.
Claim 21
Appellants contend that although Patel’s filter value field indicates the
location information related to a tag, no indication of to whom the tag is
relevant is disclosed (App. Br. 6). Appellants assert that “a person reading
the filter value field must make a mental determination to decide to whom
the tag might be relevant” (id.). The Examiner responds by explaining that
modifying the filter value field 264 of Patel to indicate the tag is relevant to
a firefighter, in addition to its current “encoded location information . . . ,”
would have been obvious (Ans. 11).
We agree with the Examiner that paragraph 43 of Patel suggests using
the unassigned values of Filter Value field 264 for indicating additional
information related to the location information. As further explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 12), the tags having the location information that is
indicated by their Filter Value fields are differentiated from all other
Electronic Product Code (EPC) tags, which are of no interest to the
firefighters. We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention (Reply Br.
3) that the Examiner has failed to state any reasoning for the proposed
modification to Patel because an obviousness analysis is not confined to the
explicit disclosure of the references and can consider the inferences a skilled
Appeal 2012-007337
Application 11/476,064

6
person would make, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19
(2007); the test is what the combined teaching of the references would
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). We are further guided by the Supreme Court that:
[T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one of
many addressed by the patent's subject matter. The question is
not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but
whether the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary
skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem
known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed.
KSR 550 U.S. 398, 420.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel.
Claim 26
Appellants contend Taylor merely teaches using RFID tags for
identifying lost or stolen articles by reading ownership information from the
article and therefore, is not relevant to controlling access to the building
location codes by the firefighters of Patel (App. Br. 7). Appellants assert the
Examiner has not presented a proper reason for modifying Patel’s tags to
allow access only by fire fighters (App. Br. 8). The Examiner points out that
access to the RFID tags of Patel, which contain encoded personal
information, is also limited to emergency personnel (Ans. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred in combining Patel with Taylor. We understand the Examiner’s
position to be based on relying on the teaching value of Taylor with respect
to including an authentication code in the RFID tag to recognize the devices
Appeal 2012-007337
Application 11/476,064

7
that are authorized to communicate with the tag. Contrary to Appellants’
contention (Reply Br. 4) that the proposed modification results in keeping
the building ID confidential and inaccessible to firefighters, the combination
actually allows the fire fighters to have complete access to all the
information contained in the fields disclosed by Patel.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel and Taylor.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9–15, 21, and 26 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kme