Ex Parte OUZOUNOV et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14765392 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/765,392 08/03/2015 SOTIR FILIPOV OUZOUNOV
24737 7590 08/23/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2012P01057WOUS 9915
EXAMINER
FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOTIR FILIPOV OUZOUNOV, RONALD VAN LANGEVELDE,
ANTENEH ALEMU ABBO, FRANK WARTENA,
LUCAS HENDRIKUS GERADUS TAN, and
PETER JOHANNUS HENRICUS RUTTEN
Appeal 2018-001983
Application 14/765,392 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-8.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to body coupled communication systems and
devices for use in such body coupled communication devices. Spec. 1 :2-3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellants, Koninklijke Philips N.V. is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 9-20 have been cancelled. App. Br. 16.
Appeal 2018-001983
Application 14/765,392
1. A body coupled communication system for
providing secure communication, the body coupled
communication system comprising:
a first device comprising a first body coupled
communication interface configured to transmit and receive
information via a body transmission channel along a body of a
user when the first body coupled communication interface is in
a vicinity of the user;
a second device comprising a second body coupled
communication interface configured to transmit and receive the
information with the first device via the body transmission
channel when the second body coupled communication
interface is in the vicinity of the user, wherein the first device
and the second device are configured to form a body
communication network, wherein the vicinity is a maximum
distance at which the first device and the second device are
capable of transmitting and receiving the information via the
body transmission channel, wherein the body coupled
communication system is configured to prevent misuse of the
first device or the second device such that the first device is
configured to detect whether the second device is present in the
body communication network, and provide a signal when the
second device is no longer present in the body communication
network.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Baker et al. (US 2012/0001751
Al; published Jan. 5, 2012) and Zhao (US 2008/0174554 Al; published July
24, 2008). Ans. 2-9.
Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Baker, Zhao, and Lee (US
2012/0171956 Al; published July 5, 2012). Ans. 9-10.
2
Appeal 2018-001983
Application 14/765,392
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Zhao teaches when the user's hand touches the
electrode on a computer mouse and when the user's wrist rests on a mouse
pad, bi-directional communication is formed, which the Examiner maps to
the limitation
a first device comprising a first body coupled communication
interface configured to transmit and receive information via a
body transmission channel along a body of a user when the first
body coupled communication interface is in a vicinity of the user;
and a second device comprising a second body coupled
communication interface configured to transmit and receive the
information with the first device via the body transmission
channel user when the second body coupled communication
interface is in a vicinity of the user
recited in claim 1. Ans. 5---6, 13, 16 (citing Zhao ,r 13). In addition, the
Examiner finds Zhao teaches mouse 110 may report that bi-directional
communication is broken and the communication link may be disabled or
closed, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
wherein the body coupled communication system is configured
to prevent misuse of the first device or the second device such
that the first device is configured to detect whether the second
device is present in the body communication network, and
provide a signal when the second device is no longer present in
the body communication network
recited in claim 1. Ans. 6, 14--15 ( citing Zhao ,r 46). The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in
3
Appeal 2018-001983
Application 14/765,392
the art at the time of the invention to modify Zhao to include Baker for the
purpose of preventing attenuation of the communication over longer
distances. Ans. 6-7, 16-17.
Appellants argue Baker fails to teach a "body coupled communication
system," as recited in claim 1, because Baker teaches a Bluetooth network.
App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4--7, 9--10. Appellants also argue Baker fails to
teach a "first device comprising a first body coupled communication
interface configured to transmit and receive information via a body
transmission channel along a body of a user" and "a second device
comprising a second body coupled communication interface configured to
transmit and receive the information with the first device via the body
transmission channel when the second body coupled communication
interface is in the vicinity of the user," as recited in claim 1, because Baker
teaches a Bluetooth network that does not transmit along the body of a user.
App. Br. 7-8. Further, Appellants argue Baker fails to teach "wherein the
first device and the second device are configured to form a body
communication network" because Baker's Bluetooth network only
communicates with the patient monitor, which is not the patient body. Id. at
8; Reply Br. 11-12. Appellants argue Baker fails to teach
wherein the body coupled communication system is configured
to prevent misuse of the first device or the second device such
that the first device is configured to detect whether the second
device is present in the body communication network, and
provide a signal when the second device is no longer present in
the body communication network
as recited in claim 1 because Zhou does not prevent misuse nor does Zhou
recognize any possible misuse or disconnection. Id. at 9. Moreover,
Appellants argue there is a lack of motivation to combine Baker and Zhou
4
Appeal 2018-001983
Application 14/765,392
because: (1) Zhou teaches away from combining with Baker's Bluetooth;
(2) neither Baker nor Zhao appears to focus on security; and (3) the
Examiner's motivation includes improper hindsight. App. Br. 6-13 (citing
Zhao ,r,r 7-8); Reply Br. 10-11, 14--17.
In addition, Appellants argue Zhao's one-way communication and
second one-way communication fails to teach "transmit and receive
information" as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2-3. 3 Appellants also argue
Zhao' s link between an electronic device worn on a living body and another
electronic device does not teach the claimed "body communication system."
Id. at 7-8. 4 Further, Appellants argue Zhao's paragraph 46 merely discusses
a connection being broken and closed, which fails to teach preventing
misuse or detecting when a device is no longer present in the body
communication network. Id. at 12-14. 5 We disagree with Appellants.
Regarding Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 6-
9) pertaining to Baker failing to teach certain limitations, we disagree with
Appellants because the Examiner later relies on Zhao in the Answer to teach
these limitations. Compare Ans. 5-6, 13, 16 (citing Zhao ,r 13), with Final
Act. 2--4.
Additionally, the cited portions of Zhao teach when the user's skin on
their hand touches the electrode on a computer mouse and when the user's
skin on their wrist rests on a mouse pad, bi-directional communication is
formed between the user worn device and mouse/mouse pad via the
3 Appellants' argument is timely because it is responsive to the Examiner's
new finding relying on paragraphs 13 and 46 of Zhao in the Answer. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
4 See supra, n.3.
5 See supra, n.3.
5
Appeal 2018-001983
Application 14/765,392
hand/wrist, which teaches "body coupled communication system" as recited
in claim 1. Ans. 5-6, 13, 16 (citing Zhao ,r 13). Furthermore, the cited
portions of Zhao teach bi-directional communication is formed (i.e., transmit
and receive information via the body coupled communication interface)
when the user's hand contacts the mouse and the wrist contacts the mouse
pad, which teaches the limitation
a first device comprising a first body coupled communication
interface configured to transmit and receive information via a
body transmission channel along a body of a user when the first
body coupled communication interface is in a vicinity of the user;
and a second device comprising a second body coupled
communication interface configured to transmit and receive the
information with the first device via the body transmission
channel user when the second body coupled communication
interface is in a vicinity of the user
recited in claim 1. Ans. 5---6, 13, 16 (citing Zhao ,r 13). In addition, we
agree with the Examiner's determination that the recitation of "to prevent
misuse" in claim 1 is intended use and Zhao is capable of preventing misuse.
Ans. 14--15. In particular, the cited portions of Zhao teach a mouse may
report that bi-directional communication is broken (i.e., when a device is no
longer present in the body communication network) and the communication
link may be disabled or closed, which teaches the limitation
wherein the body coupled communication system is configured
to prevent misuse of the first device or the second device such
that the first device is configured to detect whether the second
device is present in the body communication network, and
provide a signal when the second device is no longer present in
the body communication network
recited in claim 1. Ans. 6, 14--15 ( citing Zhao ,r 46).
As for Appellants' argument that Zhao teaches away from combining
with Baker's Bluetooth (App. Br. 6-13 (citing Zhao ,r,r 7-8)), we disagree
6
Appeal 2018-001983
Application 14/765,392
because the Federal Circuit held "[a] reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 553 (Fed. Cir.1994)). In this case, we conclude that Zhao does not
discourage from combining with Bluetooth because paragraphs 7 and 8 of
Zhao state "Bluetooth ... may be utilized ... [h ]owever, as portable
computing devices continue to shrink, new problems may arise with wireless
communication" ( emphasis added). Zhao ,r 7. Stated differently, we
conclude paragraph 7 of Zhao does not rise to the requisite level of
discouragment from combining with Bluetooth because paragraph 7 still
states that one may utilize Bluetooth. Id.
Furthermore, we disagree with Appellants' other arguments as to a
lack of motivation to combine Baker and Zhou (App. Br. 6-13) because we
agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious for a
person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Zhao to include Baker for the purpose of preventing attenuation of the
communication over longer distances. Ans. 6-7, 16-17. And we conclude
the Examiner has set forth sufficient "articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d
at 988); Ans. 6-7, 16-17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal 2018-001983
Application 14/765,392
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8