Ex Parte EDER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

14010399 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/010,399 08/26/2013
38881 7590
Infineon Technologies AG
c/o Schiff Hardin LLP
666 Fifth A venue
Suite 1700
NEW YORK, NY 10103
05/02/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Manfred EDER
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.
42792-0438 7114
EXAMINER
TANG,SONM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
lbrutman@schiffhardin.com
patents-NY@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANFRED EDER
Appeal 2017-011403
Application 14/010,399
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-25. App. Br. 8-11 (Claims App'x).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellant states the real party in interest is Infineon Technologies AG.
App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 13, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed September 7, 2017, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed July
7, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed September 12, 2016, "Final
Act."), and the Specification (filed November 18, 2013, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
Appeal 2017-011403
Application 14/010,399
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method of transmitting data packets. See
Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 21, 24, and 25 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced
below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a wireless data packet signal from a transmitter,
the data packet signal including a data packet, the data packet
including payload data and further information;
determining, from received signal strength values of the
data packet signal, first information related to a sequence of
received signal strength levels in different data packet portions;
extracting the further information from the received data
packet;
determining, based on the further information included in
the data packet, second information related to a sequence of
expected signal strength levels in the different data packet
portions; and
determining whether the first information corresponds to
the second information.
Telek, et al.,
Hinman, et al.,
Fordyce
References and Rejections
US 2006/0136997 Al
US 2013/0106577 Al
US 2008/0059303 Al
2
June 22, 2006
May 2, 2013
Mar. 6, 2008
Appeal 2017-011403
Application 14/010,399
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1-18 and 20-25 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting. Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 1-19 and 21-25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hinman. Final Act. 4--13.
3. Claim 20 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hinman and Telek. Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-25 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant's
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4--7.
CLAIMS 1-18 AND 20-25: OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
Claims 1-18 and 20-25 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-
pending Application No. 13/676,222. Final Act 3. We note the '222
Application issued January 31, 2017 as US 9,558,607, thus mooting the
provisionality of the rejection. The prosecution history of the present
application includes a notice that Appellant's Terminal Disclaimer filed
December 9, 2016 was granted.
The Examiner's Answer neither repeats, nor discusses, the double
patenting rejection. We, therefore, conclude the rejection has been
withdrawn. Any rejection not repeated and discussed in the answer may be
taken by the Board as having been withdrawn. Ex Parte Emm, 118 USPQ
180 (Bd. App. 1957).
3
Appeal 2017-011403
Application 14/010,399
CLAIMS 1-19 AND 21-25: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HINMAN.
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "first ( and second)
information related to a sequence of received signal strength levels in
different data packet portions." Independent Claims 21, 24, and 25 contain
commensurate recitations.
Appellant explains the claimed subject matter relates to a configurable
signal strength level fingerprint (i.e., a sequence of signal strength levels)
which a transmitter can select for each data packet. App. Br. 4. According
to Appellant, to transmit the configurable fingerprint to a receiver, further
information on the transmitted signal strength fingerprint is additionally
included in the payload. App. Br. 4--5. The further information on the
transmitted signal strength fingerprint, together with the actual received
signal strength, can then be used by the receiver to determine the validity of
the received data packet. The configuration of the fingerprint by the
transmitter makes it more difficult for attackers by providing additional
prevention against relay attacks. App. Br. 5. In order to enable the receiver
to identify the expected fingerprint which was selected by the transmitter,
the transmitter transmits further information in the payload data of the data
packet which is used at the receiver to identify the configured fingerprint,
that is, the configured sequence of strength levels within the data packet.
The further information is generated from the sequence of strength levels by
applying a pre-known rule to the sequence of strength levels. Because this
pre-known rule is also known to the receiver, the configured sequence of
strength levels can be identified from the transmitted fingerprint identifier
information by applying the reverse of the rule to the fingerprint identifier.
4
Appeal 2017-011403
Application 14/010,399
Appellant contends that in contrast, Hinman discloses different power
levels for different signals, not different data packet portions, as required by
independent claim 1. App. Br. 5. According to Appellant, Hinman discloses
that "[a] signal can also be one component of a message, e.g., a select or
other command, an acknowledgement, a packet of data from the tag, or a
query response." App. Br. 6 (Appellant's emphasis).
The Examiner finds that Hinman teaches the authorization sequence is
a key corresponding with the tag, within the data packet. Ans. 2 ( citing
Hinman, ,r,r 60-64).
Contrary to the Examiner, Appellant contends Hinman discloses
different power levels for different signals, not different data packet
portions. App. Br. 5 (citing Hinman ,r,r 60-64).
We agree with Appellant. Hinman discloses "the authorization
sequence specifies [] the power levels required for successive authorization
signals." Hinman, ,r 64 (cited by both Appellant and the Examiner).
Hinman's sole disclosure relating to a data packet teaches that a "signal can
also be one component of a message, e.g., a select or other command, an
acknowledgement, a packet of data from the tag, or a query response."
Hinman, ,r 45. Contrary to the requirement of the claims, Hinman provides
no teaching that different portions of a data packet are associated with
different power levels. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the
rejection of Claims 1-19 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CLAIM 20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HINMAN AND TELEK.
Claim 20 depends from Claim 1. Appellant contends Telek fails to
cure the deficiencies of Hinman. App. Br. 7. The Examiner's Answer does
5
Appeal 2017-011403
Application 14/010,399
not separately consider Claim 20. In view of the foregoing, we decline to
sustain the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6