Ex Parte Varoglu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2017

13657606 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/657,606 10/22/2012 Devrim Varoglu 5607.1620000(P15467US1) 9633
63975 7590 10/13/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
VO, NGUYEN THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
Apple-eOA @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEVRIM VAROGLU and GENCER CILI1
Appeal 2016-003328
Application 13/657,606
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 9-15, and 17—26.2 See Claims
Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants name APPLE, INC. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
2 In the Advisory Action dated April 2, 2015, the Examiner withdraws the
rejection of dependent claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Advisory
Act. 3).
Appeal 2016-003328
Application 13/657,606
The present invention relates generally to proximity detection
performed at an electronic device. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for proximity detection performed at an
electronic device, the method comprising:
the electronic device executing an application;
the electronic device determining a target wireless signal
strength based on a target distance, the determining comprising, while
the electronic device is positioned at the target distance from a second
electronic device that emits a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) wireless
signal, measuring a signal strength of the BLE wireless signal and
computing the target wireless signal strength based on the signal
strength;
the electronic device receiving a BLE wireless signal
from the second electronic device;
the electronic device generating a received wireless
signal strength based on the received BLE wireless signal;
the electronic device comparing the received wireless
signal strength to the target wireless signal strength; and
on condition that the received wireless signal strength
exceeds the target wireless signal strength, the electronic device
performing one or more operations, wherein the one or more
operations include restricting a functionality of the application.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1—7, 9—15, and 17—26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tadayon (US 2012/0220284 Al, Aug. 30, 2012)
and Lewis (US 2010/0159833 Al, Jun. 24, 2010).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal 2016-003328
Application 13/657,606
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5, 7—13, and 15—26
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lewis teaches or
suggests computing the target wireless strength, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend that “Lewis is limited to measuring a signal
strength, and does not describe or suggest computing another strength value
using the measured signal strength” (App. Br. 10). Appellants further
contend that “Lewis is limited to determining the strength of the wireless
signal transmitted from the headset and subsequently using the determined
strength to estimate a distance to the headset based on path loss” {id. at
11), but “Lewis does not describe or suggest computing a target wireless
signal strength” (id. at 12; see also Reply 4).
The Examiner finds that in Lewis “‘a reference signal strength level’
reads on ‘a target wireless signal strength’ as claimed . . . [and] the statement
‘where the user places the two devices at a known distance apart and makes
a measurement to determine a reference signal strength level’ in paragraph
[0028] reads on ‘determining a target wireless signal strength” (Ans. 5—6).
The Examiner further finds that “the statement ‘makes a measurement to
determine a reference signal strength level’ in paragraph [0028] reads on
‘computing the target wireless signal strength based on the signal strength’”
(id. at 6). We agree with the Examiner.
In essence, Appellants emphasize that Lewis is limited to “measuring”
and fails to “compute,” i.e., no “computing” operation is taught, first, we
note, as a matter of claim construction, that neither the claims nor
Appellants’ Specification defines “computing.” Therefore, we find that the
ordinary and usual meaning of “computing” is determining by mathematical
3
Appeal 2016-003328
Application 13/657,606
means. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, p. 271 (9th Edition
1990).
Lewis discloses that “[t]he first device 102 may compare the received
signal strength of the wireless signal 106 to a reference signal strength level.
... the user places the two devices at a known distance apart and makes a
measurement to determine a reference signal strength level” (| 28)
(emphasis added). In other words, Lewis uses (1) a known distance between
two devices and (2) a measurement to determine a references signal
strength. The Examiner interprets, and we agree, Lewis’ recitation of
“makes a measurement” in paragraph [0028] suggests measuring a “signal
strength,” given that the distance between two devices is already known.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed “computing the target
wireless signal strength” reads on Lewis’ determining the reference signal
strength which is based on both a known distance between two devices and a
measurement, i.e., suggesting a measured wireless signal strength.
Therefore, we find unavailing Appellants’ contention that “Lewis
does not describe or suggest computing any value such as the target wireless
signal strength” (App. Br. 11). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 9, 17, and 22 rely on the same arguments as
for claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for the
dependent claims, except as noted below. See App. Br. 10-13. We
therefore also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—5, 7, 9-13, 15,
and 17—26.
4
Appeal 2016-003328
Application 13/657,606
Claims 6 and 14
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Tadayon teaches or
suggests associating the BLE transmitter with a child, as set forth in claim 6?
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Appellants contend that “Tadayon
describe how the system enables parents to set higher restrictions for
children . . . However . . . [njowhere in the cited sections does Tadayon
describe or suggest associating a transmitter with a child” (App. Br. 12).
In response, the Examiner finds that “claims 6 and 14 fail to further
define that the transmitter is only associated with a child, or how the
transmitter is associated with a child. Accordingly, these BLE transmitters
in Tadayon are associated with a child as claimed with the broadest
reasonable interpretation” (Ans. 8). We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Tadayon discloses “Action Controller Module sends a
warning message to a father . . . about the receiving text message by a
teenage driver (his son)” (| 203) and “the restriction can be higher ... for
the children under 18... the younger the driver, the more restrictions on the
driver” (| 153). We agree with the Examiner that such a disclosure shows
an association between a transmitter and a child. The broadest reasonable
interpretation of an “association” is any connection thereto. Here, the
Examiner has shown that in Tadayon more restrictions can be placed on
children and an Action Controller Module can transmit warning messages
pertaining to a child to a parent. Appellants’ fail to persuasively rebut how
such a teaching is not “associating the BLE transmitter with a child,” as
broadly recited in claims 6 and 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 14.
5
Appeal 2016-003328
Application 13/657,606
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6