Ex Parte Cuddihy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

14039219 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017)

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.
14/039,219 09/27/2013 Mark A. Cuddihy 83391088 7148
28395 7590 09/22/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER NGUYEN, NGA X
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK A. CUDDIHY and MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO
Appeal 2016-007133
Application 14/039,219
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark A. Cuddihy and Manoharprasad K. Rao (Appellants) seek 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).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-007133
Application 14/039,219
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and system
having a near-field communication (NFC) reader and a plurality of antennae
in communication therewith. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting a plurality of near field communication (NFC) IDs;
ranking the IDs by a number of antennas detecting each ID and
an associated signal strength, respectively;
determining a single ID, of the plurality of IDs, detected by the
most antennas;
associating a wireless device to which the single ID corresponds,
with a driver; and
applying a plurality of vehicle system settings correlating to the
wireless device associated with the driver.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lickfelt (US 8,626,357 Bl, issued Jan. 7, 2014) in
view of Bolduc (US 7,474,264 B2, issued Jan. 6, 2009).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds, relative to claim 1, that the Lickfelt near-field
communication system and method fails to disclose the step of ranking a
plurality of NFC IDs by a number of antennas that detect each ID and its
associated signal strength, and the step of determining a single ID, out of the
plurality of IDs, that is detected by the most antennas. Final Act. 4. The
2
Appeal 2016-007133
Application 14/039,219
Examiner cites to Bolduc as disclosing a vehicle RF detection system and
method which employs these claimed steps. Id. at 5. The Examiner cites to
discussions at column 3, line 59 to column 4, line 5, and at column 3, lines
22—33, in Bolduc as allegedly evidencing the performance of the claimed
steps missing from Lickfelt. Id. The only “explanation” provided in the
Final Action as to how Bolduc is seen as meeting the claim limitations is as
follows:
The [Bolduc] system includes three omni directional antennas
(shown in Fig. 1) at three different locations onboard the vehicle
10 for receiving, collecting RF power signals at three locations,
and processing to determine RF signal strength to determine use
and location of one or more RF transmit devices 24 (see at least
3:22-4:5) which meets the scope of “ranking the IDs by a number
of antennas detecting each ID and associated signal strength
respectively” and “determines a single ID, of the plurality of IDs,
detected by the most antennas.
Final Action 3 (emphasis omitted).
In response to certain arguments advanced by Appellants, the
Examiner alternatively references that the Bolduc system generates, in
certain circumstances, a digital high output (binary 1), and, in other
circumstances, a digital low output (binary 0). Ans. 3, citing Bolduc, col. 5,
11. 27—60. The Examiner takes the position that, because the Bolduc system
regards the digital high output as indicating that the vehicle driver is using
an RF transmit device, this constitutes a disclosure of the claimed ranking
and determining steps. Id. More specifically, according to the Examiner,
the RF transmit devices themselves in Bolduc are “equivalent to the IDs,”
and that
the digital high output, and digital low output are equivalent to
the “ranking the detected IDs by a number of antennas detecting
each ID”, and the processing circuit determines whether the
3
Appeal 2016-007133
Application 14/039,219
transmit device used by the driver based on the digital outputs
from the antennas is equivalent to “determining a single ID, of
the plurality of IDs, detected by the most antennas.
Id. at 3^4.
We largely agree with Appellants’ interpretation of the teachings of
Bolduc, and that the Examiner has not established how the collection of RF
signals by a plurality of antennas, and the processing to determine RF signal
strength in order to determine use and location of one or more RF transmit
devices, can be seen as equating to the claimed ranking and determination
steps, and particularly not the determining of the ID that is detected by the
most antennas. See, Appeal Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2^4.
The Bolduc system uses a plurality of antennas that appear to receive
RF signals from one or more devices, and aggregate those signals into a
single signal strength at each antenna, without regard to which device or
devices contributed to the aggregated signal strength. Bolduc, passim. In
most of the Bolduc embodiments, the single signal strength values obtained
at each antenna are compared with one another, and the results of the
comparison are used to deduce whether the vehicle driver, and/or a
passenger, is or is not using an RF device. See, e.g., Bolduc, col. 3,11. 22—
48, col. 3,1. 59—col. 4,1. 5. Bolduc nowhere discloses that the individual
devices are somehow separately tracked via the antennas and signal
processing, such that a ranking of devices and subsequent determination of
which device was detected by the most antennas would be possible. The
Examiner’s position that the digital high output and digital low output
constitutes a ranking may be plausible in general, but it does not constitute a
ranking and determination in the manner set forth in claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-007133
Application 14/039,219
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Lickfelt and Bolduc is not sustained. Independent claims 10
and 14 include similar limitations to those incorrectly asserted to be
disclosed by Bolduc, and the rejection of those claims is also not sustained.
Claims 2—9, 11—13, and 15—20 each depend from one of these independent
claims, and the rejection is not sustained as to these claims as well.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
5