BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

Susheel Nuguru — Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:07:52 GMT

I guess, it is not very obvious, so good to have this discussion for others to see.

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

EAn — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 14:09:44 GMT

Thank you. I actually was a bit naive in that regard. I thought that if we had no claim, there would be no IP infringement. Thank you for the heads up!

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

Susheel Nuguru — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 14:04:42 GMT

[quote user="EAn_BN"]Finally, is it really crucial to have BT SIG qualification? I mean, isn't that just so you can use their logo and remark that you comply with the standard, so you can use the bluetooth SIG licence?[/quote]

You only need its qualification if you are claiming BLE support on your product and/or using BT logo. There are tons of IP that will be covered by BT patent pool which you will be using but since not getting qualified and certified you wont get any IP infringement protection. But I guess that is another story that you might already know about.

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

EAn — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:02:54 GMT

Thank you for clarifying Susheel, and thank you Darren for bringing that up. I have one question still standing. What if you have the CODED PHY for the Mesh and have GATT Proxy, can you claim your system supports BLE to communicate with a smartphone, for instance?

Finally, is it really crucial to have BT SIG qualification? I mean, isn't that just so you can use their logo and remark that you comply with the standard, so you can use the bluetooth SIG licence?

You could just say your product uses a proprietary mesh or something like to so, as long as the radio module is certified it should be ok, right?

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

Susheel Nuguru — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:47:25 GMT

I suppose I was not clear there, thanks for bringing it up Darren.

If you have the Mesh application with only CODED PHY, then you won't be able to qualify your product with SIG as you won't be able to pass their mandatory tests with 1Mbps PHY.

But if you have support for 1Mbps + also CODED PHY, then possibly you can claim that you have SIG specified 1Mbps feature and you can also say that the feature with CODED PHY is proprietary feature. Then you can still go ahead with your qualified..

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

WestCoastDaz — Wed, 09 Jan 2019 17:52:49 GMT

Susheel Nuguru Can you elaborate on your statement

[quote userid="6207" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/42246/bt-mesh-with-coded-phy-gatt-proxy-with-a-different-bt4-compatible-phy/164583"]t you cannot get that certified[/quote]

Do you mean you can't get SIG approval at all?

Thanks

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

EAn — Wed, 09 Jan 2019 14:15:10 GMT

Thank you for your reply @Susheel Nuguru. Just to clarify. It's ok to commercialize a product using a mesh solution based on BT Mesh+ CODED PHY etc as I specified earlier, as long as we don't advertise it as being Bluetooth. Right?

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

Susheel Nuguru — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 19:23:46 GMT

As the answer in the link mentions, you can get CODED PHY working in the Mesh network at the same time have legacy 1Mbps link work with a Gatt proxy. As long as you know that you cannot get that certified. Some of us at Nordic has tested that for fun/hobbyand it works.

RE: BT Mesh with CODED PHY + GATT Proxy with a different (BT4 compatible) PHY

EAn — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 14:30:14 GMT

I found this answer from 5 months ago: https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/37171/coded-phy-mesh-alongside-1m-phy-gatt

Any updates on that? It's not important for me to get the devices Bluetooth certified, I just want the technically best solution for the use-case. Thanks!