Huawei Device Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2020004821 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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.
15/386,472 12/21/2016 Zhihao Jin 4437-39900 5353
97698 7590 12/02/2021
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
4965 Preston Park Blvd, Suite 195E
Plano, TX 75093
EXAMINER
JIANG, YONG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
aipatent@huawei.com
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIHAO JIN and XINMIAO CHANG

Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–11, and 13–20. Appeal Br. 3.
Claims 6 and 12 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Dec. 21, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Oct. 31, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Feb. 10,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 15, 2020 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed June 11, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for
identifying a tag in a near field communication (NFC) between a device host
and an NFC controller. Spec. ¶ 6. Figure 2, reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 2 depicts a near field communication (NFC) between a device host
and an NFC controller. Id. ¶ 6. In particular, upon receiving a radio
frequency (RF) discovery signal from the device host, the NFC controller
reads the signal to determine that the type of attached tag to perform NFC
Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
3
data exchange format (NDEF) detection on the tag according to its detected
type tag such that subsequent read/write commands received from the device
host can be converted into NDEF read/write commands. Id. ¶¶ 7, 20.
Independent claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A tag identification method, comprising:
determining, by a Near Field Communication (NFC)
controller, a type of a tag;
performing, by the NFC controller, NFC data exchange
format (NDEF) detection on the tag according to the type of the
tag;
sending, by the NFC controller, a notification message to
a device host when the NDEF detection indicates a presence of
an NDEF message in the tag, wherein the notification message
comprises the presence of the NDEF message in the tag;
receiving, by the NFC controller via an NDEF radio
frequency interface, a read/write command from the device
host;
converting, by the NFC controller, the read/write
command into an NDEF read/write command; and
performing, by the NFC controller, data reading/writing
on the tag according to the NDEF read/write command.
Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis added).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Chen US 2013/0344804 A1 Dec. 26, 2013
Heo US 2014/0027506 A1 Jan. 30, 2014

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor or subject tag only.
Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
4
NFC Type 1 Type 1 Tag Operation
Specification, NFC
Forum T1TOP 1.1
Apr. 13, 2011
NFC Type 2 Type 2 Tag Operation
Specification, NFC
Forum T2TOP 1.1
May 31, 2011
NFC Type 3 Type 3 Tag Operation
Specification, NFC
Forum T2TOP 1.1
Jan. 18, 2011
NFC Type 4 Type 4 Tag Operation
Specification, NFC
Forum T4TOP 2.0
June 28, 2011
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7–11, and 13–20 as follows:
Claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the combined teachings of Heo and Chen. Final Act. 4–5.4
Claims 2, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Heo, Chen, and NFC Forum Type 1. Final
Act. 5–6.
Claims 3, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Heo, Chen, and NFC Forum Type 2. Final
Act. 6.
Claims 4, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Heo, Chen, and NFC Forum Type 3. Final
Act. 6–7.
Claims 5, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious

4 The Examiner inadvertently omitted claim 13 from this group. Because of
its dependency on claim 7, we treat claims 7 and 13 as rejected together.
Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
5
over the combined teachings of Heo, Chen, and NFC Forum Type 4. Final
Act. 7.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6–16 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–7.5 We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein
below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final
Action and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief.6 Final Act. 3–7; Ans. 3–4. However, we highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis, as follows.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the combined
teachings of Heo and Chen render claim 1 obvious. Appeal Br. 7–11. In
particular, Appellant argues that the cited combination of references does not
teach or suggest the following:
[A]n NFC controller determines a type of a tag, performs
NDEF detection on the tag according to the type of the tag, and sends
a notification message to a device host when the NDEF detection
indicates a presence of an NDEF message in the tag, wherein the
notification message comprises the presence of the NDEF message in
the tag,

5 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
6 See ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to
incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560,
1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did
not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal
conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings).
Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
6
as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 7. According to Appellant, although
Heo discloses an NDEF application identifier (NDEF AID) and reading
content associated therewith or initiating a tag applet, Heo does not
determine a type of the NDEF AID or detect the NDEF AID. Id. at 8–10
(citing Heo ¶¶ 16, 36–40, 53, 84). Further, Appellant argues that although
Heo provides a multifunction smart card that may read the NDEF AID from
memory, Heo does not determine the type of the multifunction smart card; it
simply indicates that the smart card exists. Id. at 10.
Further, Appellant argues that Heo and Chen together do not teach or
suggest, “an NFC controller receives, via an NDEF radio frequency
interface, a read/write command from a device host,” as recited in claim 1.
Id. at 11–14. According to Appellant, although Chen discloses two NFC
devices communicating when they are in close proximity (e.g., 100cm), Heo
and Chen together do not teach or suggest that such communication takes
place through an NDEF radio frequency interface. Id. at 14 (citing Chen ¶¶
35, 46).
Additionally, Appellant argues that Heo and Chen do not teach or
suggest, “an NFC controller converts a Read/write command into an NDEF
read/write command and performs data reading/writing on the tag according
to the NDEF read/write command,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 14–16.
According to Appellant, although Heo discloses a terminal that may update
tag content, the terminal does convert a read/write command into an NDEF
read/write command. Id. at 15 (citing Heo ¶ 41).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. Heo discloses a user terminal communicating with a multifunction
smart card including a control processor configured to invoke an NFC tag
Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
7
applet upon selecting an application ID of the tag applet. Heo ¶ 16. Heo
indicates that the NFC tag applet may be implemented based on NFC forum
type 4 tag operation specifications. Id. Heo further indicates that the
multifunction smart card may be recognized as an NFC tag, which may
provide stored NFC tag contents information (e.g., NDEF AID) to the user
terminal through NFC. Id. ¶ 36. Furthermore, Heo discloses an NFC tag
service, which writes new information to update the NFC tag. Id. ¶ 36.
Moreover, Heo discloses that the user terminal may determine the content
type of obtained type content information (e.g., NEDF AID) to perform an
operation associated therewith. Id. ¶¶ 53, 54. Additionally, Heo discloses
that a communication processor in the user terminal may communicate with
the multifunction smart card using a radio frequency. Id. ¶ 85.
As an initial matter, the claim does not require determining the type of
the NDEF AID or the type of a multifunction smart card. Instead, the
disputed limitation recites in relevant part, “the NFC controller detecting a
type of a tag.” As noted above, Heo discloses the controller invoking an
NFC tag applet storing data content as NDEF AID, which is implemented
using NFC forum type 4 tag operation specification. Consequently, we agree
with the Examiner that Heo’s disclosure of a control processor invoking the
NFC tag applet by selecting an application ID thereof (NDEF AID) teaches
or suggests detecting a tag as an NDEF type. Ans. 3. Next, Appellant’s
arguments merely allege that Chen’s NFC devices do not communicate via
RF interface without rebutting the Examiner’s finding that Chen’s disclosure
of peer-to-peer communication between the NFC devices teaches the RF
interface. Ans. 3–4. Further, Heo’s disclosure of a communication processor
in the user terminal communicating with the multifunction smart card using
Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
8
radio frequency teaches the NFC controller using an RF interface to
communicate with the user terminal. Id. Additionally, we agree with the
Examiner that Heo’s disclosure of the NFC tag service updating the NFC tag
applet consistent with the NDEF type teaches converting read/write
commands according to the detected NDEF tag type. Ans. 4. Consequently,
on this record, the Examiner establishes that the combination of Heo and
Chen teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not
persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
as obvious over the combination of Heo and Chen.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2–5, 7–11, and 13–20, Appellant
either does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates
substantially the same arguments as those discussed above for the
patentability of claim 1. As such, claims 2–5, 7–11, and 13–20 fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
VI. CONCLUSION
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7–
11, and 13–20.
Appeal 2020-004821
Application 15/386,472
9
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 13, 14,
19, 20 103 Heo, Chen
1, 7, 13, 14,
19, 20
2, 8, 15 103
Heo, Chen,
NFC Forum
Type 1
2, 8, 15
3, 9, 16 103
Heo, Chen,
NFC Forum
Type 2
3, 9, 16
4, 10, 17 103
Heo, Chen,
NFC Forum
Type 3
4, 10, 17
5, 11, 18 103
Heo, Chen,
NFC Forum
Type 4
5, 11, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–11,
13–20
VIII. 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2019).
AFFIRMED