Geotab Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

14756054 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

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.
14/756,054 07/27/2015 Neil Charles Cawse G0885.70001US00 8545
23628 7590 08/03/2020
WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
600 ATLANTIC AVENUE
BOSTON, MA 02210-2206
EXAMINER
MODO, RONALD T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 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):
Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
WGS_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEIL CHARLES CAWSE,
DARREN MARC LOHMANN BEAMS,
STEPHEN MICHAEL FOX, and CONG ZHU
Appeal 2019-003910
Application 14/756,054
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24 and 29–42, which are all of the

1 We refer to the Specification, filed July 27, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed September 12, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
January 16, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 28,
2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed May 25, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Geotab Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003910
Application 14/756,054

2
pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on June 18, 2020 and a
transcript has been made of record.
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an intelligent Bluetooth® beacon
input/output expansion system. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A telemetry wireless beacon apparatus comprising:
a wireless beacon communication device,
a vehicle device, and
a relative position discriminator said wireless beacon
communication device for communicating with at least one
beacon device,
said vehicle device further comprising a processor,
firmware, communications processor, telematic sensors and at
least one interface to communicate with a vehicle network
communications bus and to communicate with said wireless
beacon communication device,
said relative position discriminator including at least one
virtual boundary associated with and moveable with a vehicle
and at least one threshold, said at least one virtual boundary
location based or motion based such that for each of said at least
one beacon device detected within said threshold of said at least
one virtual boundary, said each of said at least one beacon
device is identified as a vehicle associated beacon device for
communication with said wireless beacon communication
device,
wherein said processor and firmware capable to monitor
and receive data in real time from said at least one interface, said
telematics sensors, said wireless beacon communication device,
Appeal 2019-003910
Application 14/756,054

3
and said vehicle associated beacon device thereby capable to log
said data for subsequent communication to a remote device.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lowrey
Hunt
US 7,228,211 B1
US 7,778,752 B1
June 5, 2007
Aug. 17, 2010
Sweeney
Spector
Davidson
Schrader
Babiarz
US 2009/0088207 A1
US 2011/0071880 A1
US 2012/0253892 A1
US 2013/0303143 A1
US 2015/0178822 A1
Apr. 2, 2009
Mar. 24, 2011
Oct. 4, 2012
Nov. 14, 2013
June 25, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 8–12, 16, 18, 20–23, 29–31, 33, and 36–39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Schrader, Hunt, and Sweeney. Final Act. 2–7.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 24, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schrader, Hunt, Sweeney,
and Lowrey. Final Act. 7–8.
Claims 13–15, and 40–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Schrader, Hunt, Sweeney, and
Babiarz. Final Act. 8–9.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combinations of Schrader, Hunt, Sweeney, and Spector. Final
Act. 9–10.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schrader, Hunt, Sweeney, and Davidson. Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2019-003910
Application 14/756,054

4
ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–10) and (2) the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–5) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
35 U.S.C. § 103(A)
In relevant part, claim 1 recites:
[a] relative position discriminator including at least one virtual
boundary associated with and moveable with a vehicle and at
least one threshold, said at least one virtual boundary location
based or motion based such that for each of said at least one
beacon device detected within said threshold of said at least one
virtual boundary, said each of said at least one beacon device is
identified as a vehicle associated beacon device for
communication with said wireless beacon communication
device.

3 Because Appellant argues the claims collectively, our decision turns on our
analysis of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8–14. We therefore do not mention the
other pending claims except for our ultimate Decision Summary.
Appeal 2019-003910
Application 14/756,054

5
The Examiner finds this limitation is disclosed by Sweeney. Final Act. 4
(citing Sweeny ¶ 27). In the Answer, the Examiner also cites paragraph 36
of Sweeny, which discloses, the following:
The separation alarm may be set to incrementally become more
active or use different alert mechanisms of the wireless ringer
106 based on distance. For example, the separation alarm may
begin subtly by flashing an LED when separated by ten feet and
may play a piercing alarm when the distance exceeds forty feet
or if the wireless connection 112 is severed. The user 102 may
establish one or more alarms and associated threshold distances
to guide the user back to a lost wireless device 104 based on a
scaled alert system that changes in frequency, intensity, or tone.
Sweeny ¶ 36.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs by adopting “an unreasonably
broad interpretation of the claims that is inconsistent with the Specification.”
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that the Examiner “interpreted the claim
terms ‘boundary’ and ‘threshold’ so broadly as to include a ‘range,’” such
that the claimed threshold of a virtual boundary reads on Sweeney’s “range
of the device.” Id. at 9–10. Appellant contends that “[w]hen the claim
language is properly interpreted to differentiate a mere range from a virtual
boundary associated with a threshold, the claim patentably distinguishes
over any combination of the cited references.” Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded of error. The claimed “threshold” of a “virtual
boundary” reads directly on Sweeny’s disclosure of a “separation alarm
[that] may begin subtly by flashing an LED when separated by ten feet,” the
“ten feet” being the threshold of the virtual boundary that triggers the alarm.
Sweeny ¶ 36. Similarly, the claimed “threshold” of a “virtual boundary”
reads on Sweeny’s “piercing alarm” boundary defined by a forty foot
Appeal 2019-003910
Application 14/756,054

6
threshold distance. Id. Appellant, in turn, fails to demonstrate persuasively
that the Examiner’s broad, but reasonable interpretation of the terms
boundary and threshold is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification or is
otherwise unreasonable. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83
(Fed. Cir. 2017).
In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable over the
cited art.
DECISION SUMMARY
In Sum:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 8–12,
16, 18, 20–23,
29–31, 33, 36–39
103(a) Schrader, Hunt,
Sweeney
1–3, 5, 8–12,
16, 18, 20–23,
29–31, 33, 36–39

4, 6, 7, 24, 32,
34, 35
103(a) Schrader, Hunt,
Sweeney, Lowrey
4, 6, 7, 24, 32,
34, 35

13–15, 40–42 103(a) Schrader, Hunt,
Sweeney, Babiarz
13–15, 40–42
17 103(a) Schrader, Hunt,
Sweeney, Spector
17
19 103(a) Schrader, Hunt,
Sweeney, Davidson
19
Overall
Outcome:
1–24, 29–42
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-003910
Application 14/756,054

7
AFFIRMED