Ex Parte BUER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12239665 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

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.
12/239,665 09/26/2008 Mark BUER 2875.1920001 3868
49579 7590 08/29/2016
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, TALIA F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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 MARK BUER
__________

Appeal 2014-006176
Application 12/239,6651
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark Buer (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 The Appellant identifies Broadcom Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-006176
Application 12/239,665

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A device for identifying attempts to tamper with the device
using geographic position data for the device, comprising: a
geographic positioning system (GPS) module;
a memory configured to store a geographic usage policy for the
device, wherein the geographic usage policy defines an allowable
geographic operation zone for the device; and
a secure processor including a tamper identification logic
module, the tamper identification logic module configured to:
receive geographic position data from the GPS module
indicative of a geographic location of the device,
determine whether the geographic location of the device
is within the allowable geographic operation zone for the
device, and
perform a corrective action identified in the geographic
usage policy if the location of the device is not within the
allowable geographic zone.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Levie
Weston

US 6,065,679
US 2007/0084913 A1
May 23, 2000
Apr. 19, 2007
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weston and Levie.

Appeal 2014-006176
Application 12/239,665

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weston and Levie?

ANALYSIS
Taking claim 1 as representative, the Examiner takes the position that
Weston discloses all the subject matter claimed, including
a memory configured to store a geographic usage policy for [a]
device, wherein the geographic usage policy defines an allowable
geographic operation zone for the device [and ] . . . [a] tamper
identification logic rnodule configured to: receive geographic position
data from [a] GPS module indicative of a geographic location of the
device
(claim 1), but does not disclose a tamper identification logic module being
“configured to perform a corrective action identified in the geographic usage
policy if the location of the device is not within the allowable geographic
zone” (claim 1), for which Levie is relied upon. Final Act. 4. According to
the Examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the system as recited by Weston to include the limitations as
disclosed by Levie et al, in order to enable said location determination
to trigger disablement of said POS device, wherein breach of
boundary constitutes a tampering event, because the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the
combination each element merely would have performed the same
function as it did separately. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that the results of the combination were
predictable, therefore the combination has been deemed obvious.
Final Act. 5.
The Appellant disagrees.
Appeal 2014-006176
Application 12/239,665

4
The Appellant argues that Weston fails to disclose
a device that includes a processor with a tamper identification logic
module that is “configured to ... determine whether the geographic
location of the device is within the allowable geographic operation
zone for the device, and perform a corrective action identified in
the geographic usage policy if the location of the device is not
within the allowable geographic zone,” as recited in independent
claim 1.
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
To be clear, Weston is not directed to “a device for identifying
attempts to tamper with a device using geographic position data for the
device” as the Examiner has characterized Weston. See Final Act. 4. It is
directed to using a purchasing device in communication with a point-of-sale
(POS) device. We can find no mention of tamper identification in Weston.
Although the use of geographic location is disclosed in Weston, there is no
suggestion it is used for identifying attempts to tamper. Levie, on the other
hand, does disclose a “security tampering detecting circuit” (col. 11, line 14)
and it is included in a POS device. See also col. 52, line 14. However,
Levie’s tamper detection does not involve determining whether a geographic
location of the POS device is within the allowable geographic operation for
the POS device. Accordingly, the question is whether one of ordinary skill
in the art with knowledge of Weston’s use of a purchasing device in
communication with a point-of-sale (POS) device involving the use of
geographic location and Levie’s tamper detection circuit in a POS device
would have been led to use geographic location in identify tampering
attempts as claimed.

Appeal 2014-006176
Application 12/239,665

5
The Examiner found that para. 27 discloses “a memory configured to
store a geographic usage policy for the device, wherein the geographic usage
policy defines an allowable geographic operation zone for the device” as
well as “receiving geographic position data from the GPS module indicative
of a geographic location of the device. See Final Act. 4.
Para. 27 of Weston reads as follows:
[0027] In one embodiment, POS terminal 120 may include, or be
connected to, a location determination unit 125 that includes software
and/or hardware to determine the location of purchasing entity 110
and/or POS terminal 120. In one embodiment, location determination
unit 125 may include a reader device that retrieves geographic
location information from transceiver 112. Location determination
unit 125 may also include a processor executing software stored on a
memory device that calculates the position of purchasing device 110.
For example, in certain embodiments, location determination unit 125
may include processing and communication components that send one
or more signals to transceiver 112. Based on a response signal
provided by transceiver 112, location determination unit 125 may
calculate the relative distance between POS terminal 120 and
purchasing entity 110. For instance, location determination unit 120
may determine the relative distance based on the amount of time it
takes to receive the response signal from transceiver 112.
Alternatively, location determination unit may determine the
geographic position of purchasing device 110 based on information
provided by purchasing device 110 through transceiver 112. Further,
location determination unit 125 may be configured with software
and/or hardware components that receive geographic location
information from transceiver 112 and sends the location information
to authorization system 140 over network 130 via POS terminal 120.
This passage describes a transceiver 112 that transmits location
information to a POS (120) terminal. The transceiver 112 is part of the
purchasing device 110, not the POS terminal. A unit (125) is included in the
POS terminal to determine the location of the purchasing unit via the
Appeal 2014-006176
Application 12/239,665

6
transmitted signal. This passage does not, however, disclose a geographic
usage policy for a device or a geographic usage policy that defines an
allowable geographic operation zone for a device as claimed. At best, as the
Appellant has argued, “Weston determines whether a purchasing device 110
is within a predetermined vicinity to the POS terminal 120.” App. Br. 11.
Weston’s disclosure of determining whether a purchasing device is
within a predetermined vicinity to a POS terminal is insufficient to lead one
of ordinary skill in the art to provide a geographic usage policy for a device
that defines an allowable geographic operation zone for a device, let alone to
use said information to perform corrective action as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established in the first instance by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, the rejection is not sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.

REVERSED