Becton, Dickinson and Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2021

2020005016 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/772,202 04/30/2018 Claire Letito LEVINE P-12015 (066810-02677) 8012
47058 7590 10/01/2021
Dickinson Wright - BD
1825 Eye St., NW
Suite 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
SUBEDI, DEEPROSE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2021 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):
DWPatents@dickinsonwright.com
ip.docket@bd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CLAIRE LETITO LEVINE and
MOJTABA KASHEF
___________

Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1 and 3–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 2. Claim 1 is independent. Claim 2 is
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 7, 2020), the Reply
Brief (filed June 23, 2020), the Final Action (mailed November 13, 2019)
and the Answer (mailed April 24, 2020), for the respective details.

2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (“The
word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the
Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

2

We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant:
The present invention relates to systems, methods and
apparatuses for generating viewable content (e.g., static content
such as graphic display or dynamic content such [as] video) by a
self-powered device at a point of interaction with one or more
users that employs ambient radio frequency energy harvesting to
charge a renewable, rechargeable energy storage element.
Specification ¶ 1.

Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A device for display of dynamic content at a point of user
interaction comprising:
a display;
a memory device for storing content comprising the dynamic
content;
a processor configured to controllably output the stored
content;
an energy harvesting and conditioning circuit comprising an
energy storage element and configured to receive ambient radio
frequency energy available at the point of user interaction and
charge an energy storage element without use of an external AC or
DC power source, the energy storage element being configured to
supply power to the display, the memory and the processor to
controllably output the stored content; and
a substrate on which the display, the memory device, the
processor and the energy harvesting and conditioning circuit are
mounted, the substrate having a top side from which the display is

joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in
§§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Becton, Dickinson and
Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2.

Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

3

viewable by a user and a bottom side for mounting the substrate at
the point of user interaction;
wherein the device is self-reliant for power using only
ambient radio frequency energy harvested via the energy harvesting
and conditioning circuit.

References
Name3 Reference Date
Martin US 2009/0067208 A1 March 12, 2009
Rothkopf US 2012/0194448 A1 August 2, 2012
Meloche US 2017/0104425 A1 April 13, 2017

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3–16 and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rothkopf and Meloche. Answer 3; Final Action 3–
11.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rothkopf, Meloche and Martin. Answer 3; Final Action 11–12.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Rothkopf discloses:
[A]n energy harvesting and conditioning circuit comprising an
energy storage element and configured to receive ambient radio
frequency energy available at the point of user interaction and charge
an energy storage element without use of an external AC or DC
power source (para 0042, fig.3B, 318, RF antennas, RF energy
collectors can be used to gather ambient RF energy from specific
frequency bands broadcast by a number of nearby transmitters
such as Wi-Fi antennas, cell phone towers, or even radio waves.
Although RF energy harvesting without a dedicated transmitter

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

4

typically yields modest amounts of energy, the energy could be
used to trickle charge a micro battery or super capacitor
contained within flexible cover 304).
Final Action 3–4.
Appellant contends, that “Rothkopf describes an accessory such as a
flexible cover for a tablet device” wherein “[t]he Office Action relies on features
of both the tablet device and the accessory cover to purportedly teach recitations
of independent claim 1.” Appeal Brief 5. Appellant argues that the use of the
combination of devices from Rothkopf is improper “because the tablet or host
device requires connection to an AC or DC power source to power it and
recharge its battery and therefore is not self-reliant for power as recited in claim
1.” Appeal Brief 5. Appellant further argues that, “[e]ven if the accessory
device arguably has an energy harvesting and conditioning circuit to make it
allegedly self-reliant for power, the accessory device does not have a memory
device for storing content comprising the dynamic content, or a processor
configured to controllably output the stored content” as required in claim 1.
Appeal Brief 5.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Rothkopf discloses an electronic device, for example a tablet that includes a
microprocessor or controller, as well as, a file system wherein the file system is
either a storage disk or a plurality of disks. See Rothkopf ¶¶ 54–55. Rothkopf
discloses that, “[a]ccessories for tablet devices have become quite common” and
while:
some devices such as Bluetooth headsets and keyboards do have
limited interactive capability the majority of accessories are limited
to more basic tasks. These accessories can be improved by including
at least some of the following features: (1) a power source; (2) a
communications protocol; (3) an input method; and (4) an
independent storage medium.
Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

5

Rothkopf ¶ 30.
Rothkopf teaches that, “[a]n accessory that takes a more interactive role
with the tablet would also typically need a power source to drive it. In some
embodiments, a battery can be incorporated within the body of the accessory”
for example, “a solar panel array spread across a surface of an accessory device
in the form of a cover can lengthen the amount of time the cover could be
operated between recharging.” Rothkopf ¶ 31. The Examiner finds:
The accessory device does have a memory, a processor and is also
self-reliant for power for low display tasks. Rothkopf in para 0031
discloses “a battery can also allow for the cover to continue nominal
operations after it has been removed from the tablet device,
especially with the inclusion of a small amount of storage space.”
Answer 4; see Rothkopf ¶¶ 31, 42, Figures 3A, 3B.
Appellant contends:
the Examiner is relying on an inherent teaching in [Rothkopf], which
the Appellant traverses. The accessory cover 304 can be provided
with a capacitive memory to store and show information previously
stored there by the host device 302 before the cover 304 was
detached from it. Such capacitively displayed information is static
and not dynamic content as recited in claim 1. Also, the accessory
cover 304 does not necessarily have a processor as recited in claim
1.
Reply Brief 2.
Rothkopf’s Figure 3B is reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

6

In this figure flexible cover display 302 has RF energy collection
antennas 318 integrated into second segment 310, third segment 312
and fourth segment 314. RF energy collectors can be used to gather
ambient RF energy from specific frequency bands broadcast by a
number of nearby transmitters such as Wi-Fi antennas, cell phone
towers, or even radio waves.
Rothkopf ¶ 42.
Rothkopf’s cover discloses an energy harvesting and conditioning
circuit with an energy storage element wherein the energy storage element
supplies power to the display, the memory and controls. See Rothkopf ¶ 42
where Rothkopf further teaches:
Although RF energy harvesting without a dedicated transmitter
typically yields modest amounts of energy, the energy could be
used to trickle charge a micro battery or super capacitor
contained within flexible cover 304. This energy could then be
applied to handle low energy tasks such as querying tablet device
302 for the presence of any notification updates, or even
powering a low power sensor such as a thermometer.
Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

7

Rothkopf ¶ 42.
Appellant contends, in regard to paragraph 42, that Rothkopf discloses
“modest energy could then be applied to handle low energy tasks” and
consequently:
The accessory cover in Rothkopf, para. [0042] therefore does not
teach or suggest the device in claim 1 that is self-reliant for power
using only ambient radio frequency energy harvested via the energy
harvesting and conditioning circuit and having a display, a memory
device for storing content comprising the dynamic content, and a
processor configured to controllably output the stored content.
Appeal Brief 6–7.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. “As our
precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Rothkopf discloses that without a dedicated
transmitter RF energy harvesting is modest; however, Rothkopf implies that
with a RF dedicated transmitter, the RF energy harvesting would not be so
modest. See Rothkopf ¶ 42 (“Although RF energy harvesting without a
dedicated transmitter typically yields modest amounts of energy.”).
We agree with Appellant that it is not clear that Rothkopf’s cover has a
processor included within the cover. However, we emphasize that “‘the
question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the references expressly
teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807–08 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d
747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added); see also MPEP § 2123 (9th Ed.,
Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

8

Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). Rothkopf teaches that an electronic device can be
self-sufficient by relying upon an energy harvesting and conditioning circuit
regardless of the inclusion of a processor. The inclusion of a processor in
association with Rothkopf’s display and storage to output the stored content
would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the technology. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 418; see Figure 3a, Rothkopf ¶ 42. Moreover, Rothkopf teaches the
tablet has a processor, and we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill would find the self-sufficient device of claim 1 to be obvious in view of
Rothkopf’s tablet and cover attachment. See Final Action 3, 4; Rothkopf
Figure 3B; In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (“[T]he use of a
one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art]
would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
Appellant further argues that, “[t]he host devices in Rothkopf,
however, require a power connection and therefore teach away from a
memory device on a substrate of a device that is self-reliant for power using
only ambient radio frequency energy harvested via an energy harvesting and
conditioning circuit as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Brief 6. “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)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely disclosing more than
one alternative does not teach away from any of these alternatives if the
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
alternatives). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error
Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

9

because Rothkopf does not discourage the use of a memory device on a
substrate that only uses ambient radio frequency.
The Examiner finds, “ROTHKOPF does not expressly disclose ‘a
substrate on which the display, the memory device, the processor and the
energy harvesting and condition circuit, are mounted.’” Final Action 5. The
Examiner finds Meloche addresses Rothkopf’s deficiency because:
Meloche discloses a substrate (flexible circuit 20 or circuit
board (not shown), fig.6, para 0021-0030) on which the display
(para 0030, display), the memory device, the processor (para
0025, the microprocessor 64 includes a memory 65) and the
energy harvesting and condition circuit (energy harvesting
circuit 50, fig. 6), are mounted (disposed directly on the
substrate 20 or circuit board, para 0030, fig.6).
Final Action 5.
The Examiner concludes that it would be obvious to modify Rothkopf
by incorporating Rothkopf’s components on a substrate as taught by
Meloche. See Final Action 5. Appellant argues “that it is not proper to
combine a wearable device 10 as described in Meloche, which has to be
bent, compressed or tensioned to charge, with a tablet as described in
Rothkopf.” Appeal Brief 8.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive of Examiner error
because Meloche’s substrate contortion or flexibility does not undermine
Meloche’s teaching that mounting electronic components on a substrate is
Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

10

well known in the technology and would be an obvious modification to
Rothkopf as proposed by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as, dependent claims 3–16 and 18–20 not
argued separately. 4 See Appeal Brief 5. Appellant argues, “[r]egarding
claim 17, Martin is merely relied on to purportedly teach a matching circuit

4 Should prosecution be continued, the Examiner may want to consider the
following additional publications in making a determination about
patentability of the claims:
W. M. D. R. Gunathilaka, H. G. C. P. Dinesh, G. G. C. M. Gunasekara,
K. M. M. W. N. B. Narampanawe and J. V. Wijayakulasooriya,
“Ambient Radio Frequency energy harvesting,” 2012 IEEE 7th
International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems
(ICIIS), 2012, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ICIInfS.2012.6304789.
Shiho Kim, “RF energy harvesting techniques for wirelessly powered
devices,” 2011 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Workshop
Series on Intelligent Radio for Future Personal Terminals, 2011, pp.
1-2, doi: 10.1109/IMWS2.2011.6027184.
H. Nishimoto, Y. Kawahara and T. Asami, “Prototype implementation of
ambient RF energy harvesting wireless sensor networks,” SENSORS,
2010 IEEE, 2010, pp. 1282-1287, doi:
10.1109/ICSENS.2010.5690588.
Bouchouicha, D. et al. “An experimental evaluation of surrounding RF
energy harvesting devices.” The 40th European Microwave
Conference (2010): 1381-1384.
S. Kim et al., “Ambient RF Energy-Harvesting Technologies for Self-
Sustainable Standalone Wireless Sensor Platforms,” in Proceedings
of the IEEE, vol. 102, no. 11, pp. 1649-1666, Nov. 2014, doi:
10.1109/JPROC.2014.2357031.
M. Piñuela, P. D. Mitcheson and S. Lucyszyn, “Ambient RF Energy
Harvesting in Urban and Semi-Urban Environments,” in IEEE
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 61, no. 7,
pp. 2715-2726, July 2013, doi: 10.1109/TMTT.2013.2262687.

Appeal 2020-005016
Application 15/772,202

11

and a voltage multiplier. Martin does not overcome the above-noted
deficiencies of Rothkopf and Meloche.” Appeal Brief 10–11. We sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 17 because we do
not find the combination of Rothkopf and Meloche deficient.

CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–16, 18–
20
103 Rothkopf, Meloche 1, 3–16, 18–
20

17 103 Rothkopf, Meloche,
Martin
17
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–20

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)(v) (2019).

AFFIRMED