90012363 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2015)

Ex Parte 6,294,953 B1 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 2015

90012363 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2015)

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. 90/012,363 06/18/2012 6,294,953 B1 40173/01102 2187 30636 7590 09/29/2015 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP 150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702 NEW YORK, NY 10038 EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2014-007759 Reexamination Control No. 90/012,363 Patent No. 6,294,953 B1 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2014-007759 Reexamination Control No. 90/012,363 US Patent 6,294,953 B1 2 INTRODUCTION Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, filed May 20, 2015, contends that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered March 20, 2015, in which we affirmed the rejection of claims 1-27. OPINION We will maintain the rejection. ANALYSIS Appellants assert that the Board misapprehended or overlooked two points in its Decision. First, Appellants argue that the Board overlooked or ignored the Specification of the ‘953 Patent, in its disclosure that the MAX975 reference teaches two op-amps “configured to function as individual comparators” (Req. for Reh’g 3). Second, Appellants argue that the Board misapprehended the consequence of its claim interpretation, in that it would allow any comparator that is capable of demodulating to meet the language of claim 3, because every comparator may draw less than four microamps when it is unplugged from any circuit (Req. for Reh’g 2). FIRST POINT OF ARGUMENT We do not agree with Appellants that the ‘953 Patent specification establishes that the Board erred in finding that MAX975 discloses “two modes of the same comparator that behave very differently” (Decision 6). The ‘953 Patent states that Figure 3 “illustrates an implementation of the comparator 52 [singular] in one embodiment of the present invention” (col. Appeal 2014-007759 Reexamination Control No. 90/012,363 US Patent 6,294,953 B1 3 5, ll. 20-21). Moreover, the Maxim reference makes clear that MAX975 contains a single comparator (p. 1) and that “[t]he auto-standby feature allows the comparator [singular] to automatically change from low-power mode to high-speed mode upon receipt of an input signal” (p. 1). We maintain our agreement with the Examiner that Maxim discloses the claimed “low propagation delay comparator.” See Decision 3-11. Appellants’ argument therefore does not persuade us to disturb our finding that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by the Maxim reference. SECOND POINT OF ARGUMENT Claim 3, dependent from claim 1, requires a “low propagation delay comparator” “operable to demodulate the received signal,” wherein the comparator and threshold voltage generator are powered by less than four microamps of current. We do not agree with Appellants that the MAX975 comparator is not “operable to demodulate” (Req. for Reh’g 6). We also do not agree that the Examiner is urging an interpretation that the comparator is powered by less than four microamps of current because it is unplugged from the circuit, which Appellants argue would render claim 3 meaningless (Req. for Reh’g 7). Rather, the Examiner found in the Answer that “less than 4 microamps are drawn by the comparator and Threshold Voltage generator in [low power mode] . . . . [T]he comparator can be used to detect a RF transmission when it is in its low power mode. It therefore is demodulating signals at that power level and this mode can be applied to show the unpatentability of Appeal 2014-007759 Reexamination Control No. 90/012,363 US Patent 6,294,953 B1 4 claim 3. The power requirements of the high-speed mode are not being relied upon in this rejection.” Ans. 44 (quoted in Decision 14). We maintain our agreement with the Examiner that “the comparator in the low-power mode must necessarily be ‘operable to demodulate’ at least to the extent that it can [detect a RF transmission]. After it is triggered, the comparator performs ongoing demodulation in its high-speed mode.” Decision 14, quoting Ans. 43. We therefore conclude that Appellants have not shown any points which we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision. CONCLUSION In summary, we have granted Appellants’ request for rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision affirming the rejection of claims 1-27, but we decline to modify the decision in any way. REHEARING DENIED lv