Ex Parte JURZAK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

15320338 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/320,338 12/20/2016 Pawel JURZAK
22917 7590 07/02/2018
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
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.
PATCMl 7220-US 6802
EXAMINER
GENACK, MATTHEW W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PA WEL JURZAK and LESZEK PA WEL WOJCIK
Appeal2018-002057
Application 15/320,338 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Motorola Solutions, Inc. as the real party in interest.
(Br. 3.)
Appeal2018-002057
Application 15/320,338
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a distance-
based selection of a gateway mobile radio. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
a candidate mobile radio receiving a gateway query
associated with a requesting mobile radio;
the candidate mobile radio obtaining a distance between
the candidate mobile radio and the requesting mobile radio;
the candidate mobile radio selecting a transmission time
based at least in part on the obtained distance wherein the step
of selecting the transmission time comprises selecting a delay
period or selecting a clock time; and
the candidate mobile radio transmitting a gateway
advertisement at the selected transmission time, wherein the
step of transmitting comprises transmitting the gateway
advertisement at an expiration of the delay period, or
transmitting the gateway advertisement at the selected clock
time.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2012/01127916 Al, pub. May
24, 2012) (hereinafter "Yoo"), Cardona (US 2014/0030982 Al, pub. Jan. 30,
2014), Levkovitz et al. (US 2007/0088801 Al, pub. Apr. 19, 2007)
(hereinafter "Levkovitz"), and Javaid et al. (US 2010/0008261 Al; pub. Jan.
14, 2010) (hereinafter "Javaid"). (Final Act. 3.)
2
Appeal2018-002057
Application 15/320,338
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Chen (US
2003/0117966 Al, pub. June 26, 2003). (Final Act. 12.)
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Hirata et al.
(US 2005/0010363 Al, pub. Jan. 13, 2005) (hereinafter "Hirata"). (Final
Act. 13.)
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Chun et al. (US
2010/0091720 Al, pub. Apr. 15, 2010) (hereinafter "Chun"). (Final Act.
16.)
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Amis et al (US
2012/0182932 Al, pub. July 19, 2012) (hereinafter "Amis"). (Final Act.
17.)
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Chen et al.
(US 2012/0093087 Al, pub. Apr. 19, 2012) (hereinafter, "Chen '087'').
(Final Act. 18-19.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Hayee et al.
(US 2015/0199905 Al, pub. July 16, 2015) (hereinafter "Hayee"). (Final
Act. 20-21.)
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Santhoff (US
2004/0002346 Al, pub. Jan. 1, 2004). (Final Act. 22.)
3
Appeal2018-002057
Application 15/320,338
The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Kalervo
Hamalainen et al. (US 2011/0086639 Al, pub. Apr. 14, 2011) (hereinafter
"Kalervo Hamalainen"). (Final Act. 23.)
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, and Breed et al. (US
2015/0197248 Al, pub. July 16, 2015) (hereinafter "Breed"). (Final Act.
25.)
The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoo, Cardona, Levkovitz, Javaid, Breed, Hayee, and
Santhoff. (Final Act. 27 .)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding Levkovitz and J avaid are
properly combinable in order to teach or suggest the independent claim 1
limitations of:
the candidate mobile radio selecting a transmission time
based at least in part on the obtained distance wherein the step
of selecting the transmission time comprises selecting a delay
period or selecting a clock time; and
the candidate mobile radio transmitting a gateway
advertisement at the selected transmission time, wherein the
step of transmitting comprises transmitting the gateway
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 20, 2017); the Final
Office Action (mailed July 13, 2017); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed
Sept. 21, 2017) for the respective details.
4
Appeal2018-002057
Application 15/320,338
advertisement at an expiration of the delay period, or
transmitting the gateway advertisement at the selected clock
time,
and the similar limitations recited in independent 20. (Br. 4--8.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant's
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-30) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief (Ans. 2-5). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding the combination of Levkovitz and Javaid teaches or
suggests the claim 1 limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure of Levkovitz of (1) an advertisement presented to a mobile device
based on the distance to that device, and is required to be sent within a pre-
defined time period, and (2) the advertisement is sent during the pre-defined
time period. (Final Act. 5; Levkovitz ,r 187.) The Examiner further relies
on the disclosure of Javaid of (1) a gateway determining a period that is the
waiting time between successive broadcasts of an advertisement message,
and (2) when the waiting period has elapsed, then the gateway broadcasts the
advertisement message. (Final Act. 6; Javaid ,r,r 132, 164--168, 174--175.)
Appellants argue "Levkovitz and Javaid actually teach away from
combination, since if you practiced the teachings of Levkovitz, you would
be lead away from delaying transmissions (i.e., choosing a delay period or
5
Appeal2018-002057
Application 15/320,338
clock time) of advertisements as taught by Javaid" and that Levkovitz
"further teaches away from delaying any location-based advertisement."
(Br. 7.) Appellants further contend "delaying these advertisements to a
mobile device may result in the advertisement being sent when the device is
outside the intended area." (Br. 8, emphasis in original.)
The Examiner finds that "Levkovitz discloses that the transmission of
an advertisement is delayed until a certain time period" and thus "does not
lead away from delaying transmissions (by choosing a delay period or clock
time) of advertisements as taught by Javaid, but in fact explicitly discloses
this feature." (Ans. 3, citing Levkovitz ,r 187.) We agree because Levkovitz
explains the advertisement may "presented within a pre-defined time
period." (Levkovitz ,r 187).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that "Levkovitz explicitly
discloses, in paragraph [0188], that a combination of rules disclosed in
[O 187], may be implemented" and "it would be advantageous to combine the
rules" in a situation in which "the wireless device user may be stationary,
within the predetermined range, at some time when [a] shop is closed" in
which "the advertisement is only transmitted if the wireless device remains
within range up until some later point in time ( such as soon before, or when,
the shop opens)." (Ans. 4.)
Appellants do not challenge these findings as no Reply was filed. We
conclude the Examiner's articulated reasoning provides a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 20
6
Appeal2018-002057
Application 15/320,338
commensurate in scope, as well as dependent claims 2-19 not argued
separately. (See Br. 4--8.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the obviousness rejections of
claims 1-2 0.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7