Ex Parte Pedrazzoli Pazos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2016

11751770 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111751,770 0512212007
81615 7590 03/04/2016
Law Offices of Ira D. Blecker, P.C.
206 Kingwood Park
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fernando D. Pedrazzoli Pazos
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.
FR920050099US 1 2579
EXAMINER
STANFORD, CHRISTOPHERJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2887
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2016 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):
idb@bleckeriplaw.com
pokeepsie@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FERNANDO D. PEDRAZZOLI1
Appeal2014-005715
Application 11/751,770
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a portable device for allowing a user to operate a
plurality of objects comprising a communication logic establishing direct
1 International Business Machines Corporation is identified as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005715
Application 11/751,770
interaction between the portable device and at least one of the plurality of
objects, a controller logic having an authentication logic enabling the
authentication of the user and the identification and authentication of the
plurality of objects, and a user interface to execute an action on at least one
of the plurality of objects (independent claim 1, Fig. 1; see also independent
claim 13). Appellant also claims a corresponding method for allowing a
user device to deal with a plurality of objects comprising, inter alia, the step
wherein at least one of the plurality of objects activates a response from the
user device to at least one of the plurality of objects alerting the at least one
of the plurality of objects to the presence of the user device (independent
claim 20). Finally, Appellant claims a system for allowing an object to
interactively communicate with a portable device comprising, inter alia, a
communication unit in the object for activating a response from the portable
device to the object and communicating a context message to the portable
device upon detecting the portable device (independent claim 17).
A copy of representative claims 1, 17, and 20, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A portable device for allowing a user to operate a
plurality of objects, the portable device comprising:
a communication logic establishing direct interaction
between the portable device and at least one of the plurality of
objects;
a control logic capable of detecting and identifying the
plurality of objects, the control logic comprising an
authentication logic enabling the authentication of the user and
the identification and authentication of the plurality of objects,
the control logic allowing the user to execute an action on at
least one of the plurality of objects; and
2
Appeal2014-005715
Application 11/751,770
a user interface specially adapted for use by disabled
persons to operate the plurality of objects and execute an action
on at least one of the plurality of objects.
17. A system for allowing an object to interactively
communicate with a portable device carried by a user, the
system comprising:
a memory in the object for storing an encoded context
message, wherein the context message comprises information
related to an identification of the object;
a communication unit in the object for establishing
communication with the portable device, activating a response
from the portable device to the object and communicating the
context message to the portable device upon detecting the
portable device; and
a control unit in the object for executing the steps
required to authenticate the object from the information in the
context message, allow the object to interactively communicate
with the user responsive to a communication from the user and
execute the actions desired by the user.
20. A method for allowing a user device to deal with a
plurality of objects, the method comprising the steps of:
responsive to being proximate to at least one of the
plurality of objects, activating a response from the user device
by the at least one of the plurality of objects to the at least one
of the plurality of objects alerting the at least one of the
plurality of objects to the presence of the user device;
receiving a context message by the user device from at
least one of the plurality of objects, wherein the context
message comprises information related to an identification of
the at least one of the plurality of objects;
authenticating and identifying the at least one of the
plurality of objects from the information in the context
message;
3
Appeal2014-005715
Application 11/751,770
authenticating the user device to the at least one of the
plurality of objects;
exchanging protocol authorization between the user
device and the at least one of the plurality of objects;
identifying an action to be initiated by the user device on
at least one of the plurality of objects subsequent to exchanging
protocol authorization;
initiating direct communication between the user device
and the at least one of the plurality of objects for exchanging
information between the user device and the at least one of the
plurality of objects regarding the action and for allowing the
object to interactively communicate with the user responsive to
a communication from the user and execute the actions desired
by the user;
locking the communication between the user device and
the at least one of the plurality of objects until the exchange of
information regarding the action is complete; and
executing the action on the at least one of the plurality of
objects by the user device.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
claims 1--4, 7-16, and 20 over Dewan (US 2005/0012595 Al
published Jan. 20, 2005) in view of Crimmins et al (US 6,181,255 Bl issued
Jan. 30, 2001 (hereinafter "Crimmins")) and Ueda et al. (US 2004/0070489
Al published Apr. 15, 2004 (hereinafter "Ueda"));
claim 5 over these references in combination with Naito et al. (US
2006/0043181 Al published Mar. 2, 2006 (hereinafter"Naito")); and
claims 1 7 and 19 over Crimmins in view of Ueda.
Appellant's arguments are directed to independent claims 1, 13, 1 7,
and 20 only (App. Br. 4--19), and therefore the dependent claims will stand
4
Appeal2014-005715
Application 11/751,770
or fall with their parent independent claims. Because the arguments
regarding claim 1 (id. at 6-10) correspond to those regarding claim 13 (id. at
10-12), we will focus on claim 1 as representative of these claims.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
In rejecting claims 1, 13, and 20, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious, in view of Crimmins and Ueda, to provide Dewan
with a control logic having an authentication logic enabling the
authentication of the user and the identification and authentication of
Dewan's plurality of vehicles whereby the portable device of Dewan would
interact directly with the vehicles only rather than the vehicles and their
respective external key fobs (see, e.g., Final Action 2---6 and 21-22).
Appellant disputes this obviousness conclusion by arguing that "Ueda
only deals with authentication of one object (the vehicle) and not
authentication of a plurality of objects as claimed by Appellant" (App. Br. 9)
and that the "the control logic of Ueda does not appear to disclose
authentication of the vehicle to the user's portable device" (id.).
Appellant's arguments lack persuasive merit. It is true that Ueda
discloses authentication between a portable unit and a single vehicle (i.e., a
single vehicle-mounted unit). However, we agree with the Examiner that the
applied references in combination would have suggested providing Ueda's
authentication logic to Dewan's plurality of vehicles so as to prevent an
unauthorized user from executing an action on one of these plurality of
vehicles (see, e.g., Final Action 6). In addition, Appellant is incorrect in
believing that Ueda does not disclose authentication of the vehicle to the
portable unit. Ueda repeatedly discloses mutual authentication between the
vehicle and portable unit (see, e.g, Abst., Fig. 8, i-fi-12 and 105).
5
Appeal2014-005715
Application 11/751,770
With regard to method claim 20, Appellant also contends that "Ueda
(as well as Dewan and Crimmins) fails to teach the actual response from the
user device which is 'alerting the at least one of the plurality of objects to the
presence of the user device'" (App. Br. 15).
This contention is not persuasive. The Figure 8 disclosure of Ueda
teaches this claim 20 step as correctly found by the Examiner (Final Action
16-1 7, Ans. 5). In the Reply Brief, Appellant acknowledges the Examiner's
reference to steps S205 and S206 of Figure 8 but states that "the vehicle has
already discovered the user device long before these steps occur" (Reply Br.
5). However, Appellant does not explain why this statement is considered to
distinguish claim 20 from Ueda. Such explanation is necessary because the
claim 20 step in question requires at least one of the plurality of objects to
activate an alerting response from the user device which is indistinguishable
from the activating and alerting operation of Figure 8.
For the reasons stated above and by the Examiner, Appellant's
arguments fail to reveal harmful error in the§ 103 rejections of independent
claims 1, 13, and 20 as well as the claims which depend therefrom.
Appellant presents the following arguments in contesting the rejection
of claim 1 7 over Crimmins and Ueda:
Regarding Ueda, the Examiner alleges that Ueda
discloses a communication unit in an object for establishing
communication with a portable device, activating a response
from the portable device to the object and communicating the
context message to the portable device upon detecting the
portable device.
Appellant submits that there is no attempt in Ueda of
"communicating the context message to the portable device
upon detecting the portable device". The context message
"comprises information related to an identification of the
6
Appeal2014-005715
Application 11/751,770
object". There is no attempt in Ueda to identify the object, i.e.,
the vehicle. As shown in Fig. 8 of Ueda, the portable unit
transmits an identification signal to the vehicle object in step
S204 but there is no return identification of the vehicle object to
the portable unit.
Also regarding Ueda, the Examiner further alleges that
Ueda "discloses a control unit... for executing the steps required
to authenticate the object from the information in the context
message". Appellant disagrees. The control unit in Ueda
authenticates the portable unit (Ueda, paragraph [0090]), not the
object. Ueda does not appear to disclose authentication of the
vehicle object.
(App. Br. 19).
We find no convincing merit in Appellant's position that Ueda
discloses authenticating the portable unit only and does not disclose
authenticating and identifying the object vehicle. The Figure 8 disclosure of
Ueda teaches mutual authentication including vehicle identification as
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 6; see also our previous discussion of
Ueda's mutual authentication).
Concerning the context message feature of claim 1 7, Appellant argues
without embellishment that "[Ueda's cryptographic] random number
transmission is certainly not a 'context message comprises information
related to an identification of the object' as claimed by Appellant" (Reply
Br. 7).
This unembellished argument is not persuasive for a number of
reasons. First, Ueda's transmission of cryptographic code rd (random
number) from the vehicle to the portable unit is part of the mutual
authentication and identification process (Ueda i-fi-f 100-102, 112) and
therefore necessarily comprises information related to an identification of
the object (i.e., vehicle) as recited in claim 17. Second, Appellant does not
7
Appeal2014-005715
Application 11/751,770
explain why the content of the message recited in claim 17 somehow
distinguishes Ueda' s communication unit from the claimed communication
unit.
In summary, the combined teachings of Crimmins and Ueda would
have suggested a system having a communication unit and a control unit as
required by claim 17. Appellant's arguments do not show reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 and claim 19 which depends therefrom.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l).
AFFIRMED
8