Ex Parte Trappeniers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

11842924 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LIEVEN LEOPOLD ALBERTINE TRAPPENIERS
and MARC BRUNO FRIEDA GODON
________________

Appeal 2011-010851
Application 11/842,924
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-10. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Dua (US 2006/0258289 A1; Nov. 16, 2006). Ans. 8-11.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dua and Ayatsuka (US 7,228,108 B2; June 5, 2007). Ans. 11-12.
Appeal 2011-010851
Application 11/842,924

2
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dua and Perttila (US 2004/0087273 A1; May 6, 2004). Ans. 12-15.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention “relates to interactive sessions between smart
artefacts, e.g. public displays, whiteboards or billboards, and user terminals
such as mobile phones, PDAs, laptops, etc.” Spec. 1:6-8. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A smart artefact (101) having first interfacing means
(112), active within a short range, for initiating an interactive session
with a user terminal (102),
CHARACTERIZED IN THAT said smart artefact (101) further
has:
a second interfacing means (111 ), active within a substantially
longer range than said short range, for continuing said interactive
session with said user terminal (102), and
means for transferring said interactive session from said first
interfacing means (112) towards said second interfacing means (111).

ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-4 BY DUA
We find Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-15, Reply Br. 2-3) that the
Examiner erred in concluding claims 1-4 are anticipated by Dua
unpersuasive. Based on the record, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
reasons (Ans. 8-11, 15-17) as our own. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-
4 as anticipated by Dua. We highlight the following for emphasis.

Appeal 2011-010851
Application 11/842,924

3
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Dua describes all limitations of claim 1. Ans.
8-9. The Examiner maps Dua’s wireless headphone 152 (Fig. 5) to the
recited smart artefact, maps Dua’s RFID tag 371 (Fig. 5) to the recited first
interfacing means, maps Dua’s Bluetooth radio 363 (Fig. 5) to the recited
second interfacing means, and cites to Dua’s (¶¶ 160-161) establishing
wireless (Bluetooth) connectivity using RFID setup as describing the recited
transferring the interactive session (from RFID to Bluetooth). Ans. 8-9.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
(i) “Dua does not teach or suggest the concept of a ‘smart artefact’
as defined in claim 1.” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
(ii) “Dua does not disclose a second interfacing means active with a
substantially longer range than the short range.” App. Br. 10; see also
Reply Br. 3.
(iii) “Dua does not teach the claimed means for transferring the
interactive session from the first interfacing means towards the second
interfacing means.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3.
In response, the Examiner explains:
(i) The Specification’s examples of smart artefacts are open-ended.
Ans. 15.
(ii) Bluetooth range is substantially longer than RFID range. Ans.
16.
(iii)
Specifically, Dua teaches an interactive communication session
between media player 100 and targeted device (see para. [0156,
0157], fig. 8). Dua’s user starts said interactive session by
pressing RFID activation button (see fig. 8A, step 502). Said
Appeal 2011-010851
Application 11/842,924

4
interactive session exchanges information and parameters via
RFID/NFC between devices from steps 503-505 of fig. 8A.
Furthermore, said interactive session is transferred from
RFID/NFC to the Bluetooth and continued exchanges of
information and data in steps 507-510 of fig. 8A. See para.
[0159-0161].
Ans. 17.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (i), the Specification (Spec. 1:6-11,
8:4-8) describes examples, and does not define the term “artefact.” A broad,
but reasonable, construction of the term “artefact” is its plain meaning where
“artifact” is defined, in pertinent sense, as “1 a : something created by
humans usu. for a practical purpose.”1 With this construction, we see no
error in the Examiner’s findings.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (ii) and (iii), we agree with the
Examiner and see no reason why Dua’s (¶¶ 160-161) Bluetooth connectivity
using RFID for setup does not describe the recited first interfacing means
(Dua’s RFID), second interfacing means (Dua’s Bluetooth), and transferring
the interactive session (Dua’s Bluetooth connectivity using RFID for setup).

Claim 3
The Examiner cites to Dua’s examples of protocols including IEEE
802.11 for describing the recited limitations. Ans. 10 (citing Dua ¶ 62).
Appellants argue “the second interfacing means relates only to
long range communication methods, which are not taught or suggested by
the primary citation to Dua.” App. Br. 12.

1 MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1997)
65
Appeal 2011-010851
Application 11/842,924

5
Dua’s description of 802.11 (¶ 62) describes the recited limitations.
We see no error in the Examiner’s findings.

Claim 4
The Examiner finds Dua describes all recited limitations of claim 4.
Ans. 10-11; see also Ans. 15-17.
Appellants present the same principal arguments for claim 4 as
presented for claim 1. App. Br. 12-15.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5 AND 6 OVER DUA AND AYATSUKA
We find Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 15) that the Examiner erred
in concluding claims 5 and 6 are obvious over Dua and Ayatsuka
unpersuasive. Based on the record, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
reasons (Ans. 11-12) as our own. We concur with the conclusion reached by
the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 as
obvious over Dua and Ayatsuka.
For emphasis, we note that, while Appellants argue (App. Br. 15) that
Ayatsuka does not teach a smart display, claim 5 and 6 identically recite
“wherein the smart artefact is operative to provide information to a user
terminal and comprises at least one of a smart display, a billboard, a white
board, and an ambient wall.” Ayatsuka (col. 6, ll. 60-64) describes an RF
tag reader installed at a display. The broad claim language does not
preclude a finding that Ayatsuka when combined with Dua teaches the
argued limitations. We, therefore, are not persuaded of error.
Appeal 2011-010851
Application 11/842,924

6

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7-10 OVER DUA AND PERTTILA
We find Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 16-21) that the Examiner
erred in concluding claims 7-10 are obvious over Dua and Perttila
unpersuasive. Based on the record, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
reasons (Ans. 12-15) as our own. We concur with the conclusion reached by
the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 as
anticipated by Dua and Perttila. We highlight the following for emphasis.

Claim 7
The Examiner finds Dua and Perttila collectively teach all limitations
of claim 7. Ans. 12-13. The Examiner relies on Perttila for teaching the
recited haptic or tactile aspects of the first interfacing means. Ans. 13 (citing
Perttila, ¶¶ 26-27).
Appellants present the same principal arguments for claim 7 as
presented for claim 1. App. Br. 16-18. Appellants further argue Perttila
does not overcome the deficiencies of Dua. App. Br. 18.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, and we need not address
whether Perttila overcomes the purported deficiencies of Dua.

Claim 10
The Examiner finds Dua and Perttila collectively teach all limitations
of claim 10. Ans. 13-15.
Appellants present the same principal arguments for claim 10 as
presented for claim 7. App. Br. 18-21.
Appeal 2011-010851
Application 11/842,924

7
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10 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)(1).

AFFIRMED

gvw