Ex Parte Sarmenta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

13293257 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/293,257 11/10/2011
10949 7590 08/04/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Luis SARMENTA
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.
042933/420235 8225
EXAMINER
ZAIDI, SYED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUIS SARMENTA
Appeal2015-000128
Application 13/293,257
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-24, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Nokia Corporation.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-000128
Application 13/293,257
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed invention "relate[s] generally to
communications technology and, more particularly, ... [to] determining and
using a configuration of a composite object." (Spec. i-f 2.) Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving information emitted by one or more tags in
one or more objects of a composite object, the composite object
being composed of a plurality of objects;
determining, by a processor, based at least in part on
the received information, at least a partial configuration of the
composite object, the determined at least a partial configuration
defining how two or more of the objects that compose the
composite object are arranged in relation to each other within the
composite object; and
using the determined at least a partial configuration
of the composite object as an input to alter an application state.
Claims 1-10, 12-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over to Glynne-Jones et al. (US
2011/0244964 Al; Oct. 6, 2011) (hereinafter "Glynne-Jones"). (See Final
Act. 6-14.)
Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glynne-Jones and Sindhu Karthikeya & Mikhail
Nesterenko, RFID Security without Extensive Cryptography, PROCEEDINGS
OF THE 3RD ACM WORKSHOP ON SECURITY OF AD Hoc AND SENSOR
NETWORKS (Association for Computing Machinery), 2005, at 63 (hereinafter
"Karthikeya"). (See Final Act. 14--16.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Mar. 07, 2014; "Reply Br." filed Sept. 18, 2014) and the
2
Appeal2015-000128
Application 13/293,257
Specification ("Spec." filed Nov. 10, 2011) for the positions of Appellants
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed July 05, 2013) and Answer
("Ans." mailed July 18, 2014) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of
the Examiner
ISSUE
The pivotal issue raised by Appellant's contentions is whether the
Examiner errs in finding Glynne-Jones teaches or suggests "[a] composite
object ... composed of a plurality of objects," as recited in independent claim
1, and similarly recited in independent claims 12 and 24.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and conclusions (Final
Act. 6-16) and explanations (Ans. 2-8) in light of Appellant's arguments
and contentions (App. Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 1--4). We agree with the
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and explanations and we adopt them as
our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for
emphasis.
The Examiner relies, inter alia, on Glynne-Jones's teaching that "the
plurality of transmission tags comprises a master tag storing configuration
information of the other tags in said plurality," Glynne-Jones i-f 18, to teach
or suggest the "composite object" recited in the independent claims. Ans. 6-
8 (citing Glynne-Jones Abstract, i-fi-1 8, 18-21; Spec. i-fi-139--43).
Appellant contends "a composite object is a set of composable objects
that are coupled together." App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. Figs. 5, 6). Appellant
continues "Glynne-Jones does not teach the coupling together of its
3
Appeal2015-000128
Application 13/293,257
transmission tags, or the gaming figurines or carriers in which the tags are
located, because Glynne-Jones intends for its transmission tags to be located
apart from each other." App. Br. 10. We disagree.
As pointed out by the Examiner, the independent claims do not recite
the word "coupled" or the like. See Ans. 3. Nevertheless, for purposes of
this opinion, we accept, arguendo and without deciding, Appellant's
proposed construction of the term "composite object." Appellant's
Specification discloses that objects having tags may be real or virtual and
may include persons. Spec. i-f 43. Although Appellant's Specification states
that the objects "may comprise physically composable pieces having
couplers," id. i-f 73 (emphasis added) (referring to Fig. 5), we do not view
this permissive language as limiting the coupling of objects to physical
coupling. That coupling is not so limited is emphasized by Appellant's
disclosure that objects may be virtual objects, which cannot be physically
coupled. See id. Thus, we conclude the coupling disclosed by Appellant
encompasses virtual coupling, i.e., using data or information to couple
objects.
Glynne-Jones teaches that transmission tags may be associated with
corresponding objects. Glynne-Jones i-f 33. Glynne-Jones further teaches
that a plurality of tags may comprise a master tag storing information about
the other tags in the plurality of tags. Id. i-f 18. We conclude that the storing
of information about the other tags of the plurality of tags in the master tag
virtually couples the tags, and the objects with which they are associated,
creating a composite object within the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"composite object" consistent with Appellant's Specification. We note, for
further emphasis, that the Glynne-Jones's stored information may include
4
Appeal2015-000128
Application 13/293,257
information about the physical relationships among the tags. See id. 1f 20
("[A] master tag may be generated comprising the location data of all the
transmission tags in the gaming system."), Fig. 8 (item 83).
Appellant does not persuasively establish that the Examiner errs in
rejecting independent claims 1, 12, and 24. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections over Glynne-Jones, alone or in combination with Karthikeya, of
independent claims 1, 12, and 24, and claims 2-11 and 13-23, which depend
from claims 1 and 12 respectively and were not separately argued with
particularity.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-24 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
5