Varun Krishna et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2019

14454673 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2019)

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.
14/454,673 08/07/2014 Varun Krishna 058407/448098 3980
826 7590 07/31/2019
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
SITTNER, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2019 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 VARUN KRISHNA, MARIUS CIOCIRLAN,
PETER BERGSTROM, and BENJAMIN KIM
____________________

Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,6731
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21. Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 According to Appellants, Groupon, Inc. is the real party in interest (App.
Br. 2).
2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed Aug. 7, 2014; Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Jan. 26, 2017; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
July 26, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”) mailed Feb. 16, 2016; Advisory Action mailed June 2, 2016 (“Adv.
Act.”); and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 26, 2017.
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

2
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention pertains to
communication beacon based promotions for mobile devices (see Title), and
more particularly “to providing promotional offers to mobile devices based
on proximity to communication beacons” (Spec. ¶ 2). Claims 1, 11, and 21
are independent, and each recite similar limitations pertaining to facilitating
location based networked communications including the determination of a
threshold time period and a location of a consumer device “when the
consumer device has maintained the direct wireless connection with the
communication beacon within the threshold time period,” (see infra,
limitations [A1] and [A2] recited in claim 1, and commensurate limitations
in remaining independent claims 11 and 21). Claim 1, reproduced below
(with bracketed matter and emphases added), is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A system configured to facilitate location based
networked communications, comprising:
a communication beacon configured to:
communicate with a consumer device via a direct wireless
connection when the consumer device is within a wireless direct
communicable range of the communication beacon; and
poll the consumer device via the direct wireless
connection for presence; and one or more servers connected with
the communication beacon and the consumer device via an
Internet connection, wherein the Internet connection between the
one or more servers and the communication beacon is separate
from the direct wireless connection, the one or more servers
configured to:
associate beacon identifier data that identifies the
communication beacon with a merchant;

Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

3
the communication beacon indicating that the consumer
device and the communication beacon has formed the direct
wireless connection, wherein the one or more servers are
configured to receive the consumer presence data from
the communication beacon via the Internet connection and the
one or more servers are further configured to relate the consumer
presence data to a consumer profile record associated with
consumer data, the consumer profile record and associated
consumer data stored in a consumer database of consumer profile
records;
receive message data from a merchant device associated
with the merchant via the Internet connection, and wherein the
message data defines a particular location of a plurality of
locations at a merchant shop for providing the merchant message
to consumer devices; and
subsequent to receiving the consumer presence data:
determine merchant information associated with the
merchant by querying a merchant database based on the beacon
identifier data;
determine, based on the consumer presence data, whether
the consumer device is located at the particular location at the
merchant shop, wherein the determination includes the one or
more servers being configured to:
[A1] determine a threshold time period; and
[A2] determine, based on the polling of the consumer
device by the communication beacon via the direct wireless
connection, that the consumer device is located at the particular
location at the merchant shop when the consumer device has
maintained the direct wireless connection with the
communication beacon within the threshold time period;
in response to determining that the consumer device is
located at the particular location at the merchant shop, [A3]
provide the merchant information to the consumer device,
wherein at least a portion of the merchant information comprises
the merchant message;
generate visitation data based on the consumer presence
data received from the communication beacon; and

Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

4
update the consumer data associated with the consumer
profile based on the visitation data.

The Examiner’s Rejections3
(1) Claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 9–17.
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to provide adequate written description of the claimed
invention. Final Act. 4–6. Because the Examiner has withdrawn the
§ 112(a) rejection (Ans. 2; see also Reply Br. 2), we will not address this
rejection or Appellants’ arguments (see App. Br. 10–13) directed thereto.
(2) Claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the same base combination of Lu et al.
(US 2015/0278888 A1; published Oct. 1, 2015) (hereinafter, “Lu”),
Papakipos et al. (US 2015/0142551 A1; published May 21, 2015)
(hereinafter, “Papakipos”), and Farhi (US 2015/0242899 A1; published
August 27, 2015).4 Final Act. 6–30.

3 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of April 9, 2014.
Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-
29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) amendments to the U.S. Code (§ 112) are
applicable. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”)
§ 2159.02 (The amended sections “apply to any patent application that
contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention that has an
effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013.”). The AIA amended
35 U.S.C. § 112, e.g., to rename § 112’s subsections. Because Application
14/454,673 has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date for
applications, this decision refers to the post-AIA version of § 112 (i.e.,
§ 112(a)).
4 With regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 5–7, 15–17, and 21 over
the base combination of Lu, Papakipos, and Farhi taken with various tertiary
references, Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for base claims
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

5
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 10–32)
and the Reply Brief (2–18), in light of the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2–17), the following issues
are presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract
idea), without significantly more?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21 as
being unpatentable over the base combination of Lu, Papakipos, and Farhi,
because Farhi fails to teach or suggest facilitating location based networked
communications including the determination of a threshold time period and
a location of a consumer device “when the consumer device has maintained
the direct wireless connection with the communication beacon within the
threshold time period,” as recited in limitations [A1] and [A2] of claim 1, as
recited in claim 1, and as commensurately recited in claims 11 and 21?

ANALYSIS
Issue (1): Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the
Patent Act, which recites:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
to the conditions and requirements of this title.

1 and 11, which are rejected over the base combination of Lu, Papakipos,
and Farhi (App. Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 9–11).
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

6
There are, however, three judicially-created exceptions to the broad
categories of patent-eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101: “[l]aws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In
accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim
is “directed to.” See id. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are
drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party
to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
(15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

7
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks
omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

8
Reg. 50 (2019) (hereinafter, “Revised Guidance”). Under that guidance,
after determining that a claim falls within one of the statutory categories
under § 101 (hereinafter, “USPTO Step 1”), we determine whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or
certain methods of organizing human activities such as a
fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior
or relationships or interactions between people) (hereinafter,
“USPTO Step 2A, Prong 1”); and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (hereinafter, “USPTO Step 2A, Prong 2”).
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51–52, 54–55. Only if a claim: (1)
recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a
practical application, do we then evaluate whether the claim provides an
inventive concept. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at
217–18. For example, we look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception
(hereinafter, “USPTO Step 2B”). Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56.

Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

9
USPTO Steps 1 and 2A, Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 recite commensurate limitations
drawn to “[a] system configured to facilitate location based networked
communications” including “a communication beacon,” “a consumer
device,” “one or more servers connected with the communication beacon
and the consumer device via an Internet connection,” “a consumer
database,” and “a merchant database” (claims 1 and 21), and remaining
independent claim 11 recites to “[a] machine-implemented method” for
associating a communication beacon with a merchant by performing various
steps, which, on their faces, fall within the four categories of invention under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner finds, however, that claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed
to a judicial exception, in particular, “the abstract idea of targeting
advertising to a user device which is within a wireless proximity to an ad
server’s beacon” (Final Act. 2).
Appellants contend (see generally App. Br. 17–20; Reply Br. 11–16)
that although claims 1, 11, and 21 may recite targeted advertising (see e.g.,
limitation [A3] in claim 1), the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of
targeted advertising. Instead, Appellants contend the claims are directed to a
four device communication protocol involving interactions between (i) one
or more servers, (ii) a merchant device, (iii) a communication beacon, and
(iv) a consumer device (see App. Br. 17–20; Reply Br. 11–16). Appellants
argue that “while Appellant’s claims may involve ‘targeting advertising to a
user device which is within a wireless proximity to an ad server’s beacon,’
this does not mean that the character of the claims as a whole, considered in
light of the specification, can be considered to be directed to this concept”
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

10
(App. Br. 19). Instead, and more specifically, Appellants contend that (i)
“the claims describe a four device (e.g., server, merchant device,
communication beacon, consumer device) communication protocol” (App.
Br. 20); (ii) “at least Claim 1, describes a four device system (a server,
consumer device, merchant device and communication beacon)
communication protocol” (Reply Br. 15); and (iii) “[t]hus, the Appellant has
recited a protocol and a four device communication protocol” (Reply Br.
16). We concur.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 each recite limitations which “provid[e]
promotional offers to mobile devices based on proximity to communication
beacons’” (Spec. ¶ 2) by “us[ing] at least a threshold determination to
accurately determine a consumer device’s location” (Reply Br. 13) and
“improve the technology of location detection as the claims allow location
determin[ation] with greater accuracy by accurately determining if someone
is actually located at a location or if they are merely passing by that location,
which is particularly important where there are several potential locations in
a limited space (i.e. in a merchant store)” (Reply Br. 13 citing Spec. ¶¶ 133–
34). We agree, and are persuaded by Appellants that claims 1, 11, and 21
are not directed to an abstract idea.
Although limitation [A3] in claim 1 recites, “provide the
merchant information to the consumer device, wherein at least a portion of
the merchant information comprises the merchant message” (as do the
commensurate limitations found in claims 11 and 21), we agree with
Appellants (see e.g., App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 15–17) that the claims on appeal
(i) are more focused on a four device communication protocol that “is
particularly advantageous when a consumer device does not have access to
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

11
the Internet (e.g., in a coverage deadzone, no Wifi available, etc.)” (App. Br.
22); and (ii) “offers an improvement to a computer system itself by allowing
accurate location detection and thus accurate message delivery” (Reply Br.
17).
Specifically, the method and system claims 1, 11, and 21 do not fall
into any of the subcategories of abstract ideas enumerated in the Revised
Guidance, namely:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;

(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and

(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (footnotes omitted). In particular, the
system configured to facilitate location based networked communications of
claim 1, including (i) a communication beacon configured to communicate
with a consumer device via a direct wireless connection, (ii) one or more
servers connected with the communication beacon and the consumer device
via an Internet connection, which server to (iii) receive message data from a
merchant device, and (iv) determine if the consumer device is located at a
specific location in the merchant’s shop, and finally (iv) transmit
information to the consumer device when a direct wireless connection
between the consumer device and the communication beacon has been
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

12
detected for a threshold period of time (see limitations [A1] and [A2]), does
not define any mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or
calculations. These features of claim 1 also do not define one of the
enumerated subcategories of methods of organizing human activity. Rather
than organizing any economic, commercial, legal, or human-based activity,
the claimed communication system and four device protocol facilitate
location based networked communications. Claims 11 and 21 recite similar
features.
In addition, claims 1, 11, and 21 do not simply perform targeted
advertising, as found by the Examiner (see Final Act. 2). In contrast, claims
1, 11, and 21 implement a four device protocol to provide information to
mobile devices based on proximity to communication beacons. In other
words, the method recited in claim 11 (and similarly, the systems recited in
claims 1 and 21) is not purely a mental process, but requires at least a
communication beacon, consumer device, direct wireless connection, one or
more servers, an Internet connection, and a merchant device to make the
recited determinations and/or perform the recited functions. Because claims
1, 11, and 21 do not recite subject matter falling into one of the recognized
categories of abstract ideas (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity, and mental processes), we are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to an abstract
idea.
USPTO Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B
As we determine claims 1, 11, and 21 are not directed to a judicial
exception, we need not consider whether (i) these claims integrate the
alleged judicial exception into a practical application under USPTO Step 2A,
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

13
Prong 2, or (ii) there is an inventive concept under USPTO Step 2B. We
are, therefore, persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1, independent claims 11 and 21, which recite commensurate limitations,
and claims 3–10 and 13–20 which depend from claims 1 and 11,
respectively, as being patent-ineligible for the same reasons.

Issue (2): Obviousness Rejections Under § 103(a)
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the base combination of Lu, Papakipos,
and Farhi (see Final Act. 6–30). In the Final Office Action, the Examiner
relies on paragraphs 54–56 of Farhi as teaching or suggesting limitations
[A1] and [A2] recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claim 11 (see
Final Act. 12), and the commensurate limitations recited in claim 21 (see
Final Act. 27–28). In response to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14–16)
that Farhi fails to teach or suggest limitations [A1] and [A2] of claim 1, and
the similar limitations of claims 11 and 21, the Examiner (see generally Ans.
5–9) cites to additional portions of Farhi, such as paragraphs 39–42 (see
Ans. 7).
Appellants contend (App. Br. 14–17; Reply Br. 4–9) that Farhi fails to
teach or suggest limitations [A1] and [A2] as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claims 11 and 21, and as supported by at least paragraph
134 of the Specification. Specifically, Appellants contend (see App. Br. 15–
16) Farhi merely determines what location a user spends more time in,
which is different from the recitation in claims 1, 11, and 21 of using a
threshold period of time for a direct wireless connection to be maintained to
determine the consumer device is located at the particular location at the
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

14
merchant shop. Appellants further contend (see App. Br. 15–16 citing Farhi
¶¶ 52–54) that Farhi only looks at the amount of time to determine products
of interest to the user, and “not whether a consumer device is
programmatically determined to be registered at a particular location or not”
(App. Br. 16). Lastly, Appellants assert (see Reply Br. 6–9) that (i) Farhi’s
paragraphs 39 through 42 describe using “polling” to continuously monitor
the position of the user device in relation to a beacon to determine the user’s
location in the store; (ii) “Farhi teaches polling as opposed to maintaining a
direct wireless connection” (Reply Br. 8); and (iii) “Farhi does not use a
threshold to establish the location of the consumer device, but instead uses
polling” (Reply Br. 9). We agree with Appellants on all counts.
Specifically, for example, although Farhi describes monitoring the
time the user spends at various locations in the store (see Farhi ¶ 41), Farhi
does not use this amount of time detected at a certain location to determine
presence for purposes of sending merchant information to the user as
claimed. And, although Farhi also describes presenting advertisements to
users detected to be approaching an in-store display (see Farhi ¶ 56), Farhi is
silent as to teaching or suggesting the features of limitations [A1] and [A2]
of (i) “determin[ing] a threshold period of time” (limitation [A1] recited in
claim 1) (emphasis added); and (ii) determining “that the consumer device is
located at the particular location at the merchant shop when the consumer
device has maintained the direct wireless connection with the
communication beacon within the threshold time period” (limitation [A2])
(emphases added).
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21 as being unpatentable over the base
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

15
combination of Lu, Papakipos, and Farhi, because Farhi fails to teach or
suggest facilitating location based networked communications including the
determination of a threshold time period and a location of a consumer device
“when the consumer device has maintained the direct wireless connection
with the communication beacon within the threshold time period,” as recited
in limitations [A1] and [A2] of claim 1 (emphasis added), as well as the
commensurate limitations recited in claims 11 and 21.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting as obvious independent claim 1, and independent claims
11 and 21 and dependent claims 3–10, and 13–20, which recite
commensurate limitations.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–11, and 13–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an
abstract idea), without significantly more.
(2) We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–11, and 13–
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the base combination of Lu, Papakipos,
and Farhi.

DECISION5
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11, and 13–
21.

5 Should there be further prosecution of the instant case on appeal, the
Examiner may wish to consider whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
may be appropriate in view of the determination of the location of the
consumer device as being at a particular location at a merchant shop “when
Appeal 2017-010359
Application 14/454,673

16

REVERSED

the consumer device has maintained the direct wireless connection with the
communication beacon within the threshold time period” (as recited in
claims 1, 11, and 21). The Specification describes detecting when the
consumer device is within a specific range of the beacon (see Spec. ¶¶ 121,
134; see also Fig. 7, step 706; Fig. 8, step 810). In addition, the
Specification supports (see Spec. ¶¶ 121, 134), and Appellants based the
arguments in the briefs on (see App. Br. 14, 16; Reply Br. 5–9), the claims
being limited to making a location determination based on the consumer
device maintaining the direct wireless connection for a threshold period of
time, or for more than a threshold time period, but not doing so within the
threshold time period as currently claimed. In other words, the Examiner
may wish to determine whether it is indefinite for the determination that the
consumer device is located at a particular location at a merchant shop to be
made “when the consumer device has maintained the direct wireless
connection with the communication beacon within the threshold time
period” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 21.