Ex Parte Bares et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12350804 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/350,804
28875 7590
Zilka-Kotab, PC
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
FILING DATE
01/08/2009
06/30/2016
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Henry Bares
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.
IFLXP039 7565
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
chrisc@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM HENRY BARES and
PETER ARNOLD MEHRING
Appeal2014-008636
Application 12/350,804
Technology Center 2600
Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-008636
Application 12/350,804
fNVENTION
Appellants' disclosed invention is directed to systems and methods for
eliminating interference between radio frequency devices. (Spec. i-f 1.)
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for coordinating reader transmissions,
compnsmg:
at a first reader, receiving from a second reader a request
to transmit to a radio frequency identification tag; and
if the first reader is transmitting, sending a denial of the
request from the first reader to the second reader.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fischer et al. US 2006/0022815 Al Feb.2,2006
n , T Tr1 I"\. A. A./ IA. -1 J- l'"'\,.... -1 ,.... .4. -1 T 1 l"\,r\. l""'t.A.A./
~atou U~ L.UUO/Ul)(Sjlj Al JUly LU, L.UUO
Chakraborty et al. US 2007 /0046467 Al Mar. 1, 2007
Moshfeghi US 2008/0297312 Al Dec. 4, 2008
Terajima JP 2003150916 A May 23, 2003
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Satou and Terajima. (Ans. 3.)
Claims 6, 7, 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Satou, Terajima, and Fisher. (Ans.
10.)
2
Appeal2014-008636
Application 12/350,804
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Satou, Terajima, Fisher, and
Chakraborty. (Ans. 7.)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Satou, Terajima, Fisher, and
Moshfeghi. (Ans. 8-9.)
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Satou, Terajima, Fisher, and
Chakraborty. (Ans. 17.)
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Satou, Terajima, Fisher, and
Chakraborty. (Ans. 19.)
Claims 19-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fisher, Satou, and Terajima. (Ans.
21.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The issue for claim 1 is whether the combination of Satou and
Terajima, as applied by the Examiner, teaches or suggests the
receiving and sending limitations of claim 1 (i.e., "at a first reader,
receiving from a second reader a request to transmit to a radio
frequency identification" and "if the first reader is transmitting,
sending a denial of the request from the first reader to the second
reader," respectively). (App. Br. 9-12.)
3
Appeal2014-008636
Application 12/350,804
The Examiner finds Satou teaches a reader that receives a query
wave from another reader and, upon receiving that query wave, does
not transmit its own query wave for a fixed period of time. (Final Act.
2-3; Ans. 4, 40-41.) The Examiner further finds Terajima teaches
sending a forbidding signal and concludes that it would be have been
obvious to combine Terajima's forbidding signal with Satou's readers.
(Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4, 40-53.)
This combination, however, does not yield the receiving and
sending limitations of claim 1 because the combined disclosure does
not teach or suggest sending a request to transmit from one reader to
another. In particular, the cited non-transmitting reader in Satou never
requests permission from the transmitting reader to transmit. (Final
Act. 2-3; Ans. 4, 40-53; Reply Br. 4--12.) The non-transmitting
reader merely recognizes the transmitting reader is transmitting and
avoids transmitting at the same time. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4, 40-53;
Reply Br. 4--12.) We find combining Terajima's forbidding signal
with Satou's cited readers would result in a transmitting reader that
transmits a forbidding signal with its query, which the non-
transmitting reader presumably receives and obeys. In such a
combination, the non-transmitting reader, however, would not have
requested permission from the transmitting transmitter to send its own
transmission. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4, 40-53; Reply Br. 4--12.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-008636
Application 12/350,804
Claims 2-10, 11-19, 20-25, 27, and 29
Independent claims 10, 19, 27, 29, and 31 recite corresponding
limitations to the receiving and sending limitations of claim 1, and the
Examiner relies on the same combination of teachings for those
corresponding limitations. (Claims Appendix; Ans. 12, 13, 22-24, 28-30,
36-39.) For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 10, 19, 27, 29, and 31. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-25
each incorporate through dependency the limitations of one of claims 1, 10,
19, 27, and 29. (Claims Appendix.) Thus, these claims stand with their
respective independent claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections
of claims 2-19, 20-25, 27, 29, and 31 for the reasons described above for
claim 1.
Claims 26, 28, and 30
Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 26, 28, and 30 should be
reversed because Satou in combination with Terajima does not teach or
suggest the receiving or sending limitations of claim 1. (App. Br. 27-31;
Reply Br. 41--45.) We are not persuaded by this argument because claims
26, 28, and 30 do not recite those limitations. Instead, these claims recite a
system with (i) logic for receiving or sending a request to transmit and (ii)
logic for sending a denial of such a request or for not transmitting upon
receiving a denial of such a request. (Claims Appendix.) As such, they
cover the logic in the recited system, rather than what the recited system
does. Paragon Solutions LLC v. Timex Corp., 586 F.3d 1075, 1090 (Fed.
Cir. 2009); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, 909 F.2d 1464, 1468
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, the Specification uses the term "logic" broadly.
(Spec. i-fi-146, 77.) And Appellants have not presented any persuasive
5
Appeal2014-008636
Application 12/350,804
arguments or evidence demonstrating that Satou in combination with
Terajima lacks the recited logic. (App. Br. 26-31; Reply Br. 41--45.)
For claim 28, Appellants also argue that the rejection should be
reversed because the Examiner has not directly asserted that Fisher teaches
logic for sending to a plurality of readers a request to transmit to a radio
frequency tag, the request being directed to the readers. (App. Br. 29.) We
are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner identifies the portions of
Fisher that the Examiner relies on for this limitation, and Appellants have
not set forth any persuasive argument as to why those cited portions fail to
teach or suggest the limitation. (Final Act. 29-30; App. Br. 29-30; Ans. 29-
30; Reply Br. 43--44.)
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claim 26, 28, and 30.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-25, 27, 29, and 31.
We affirm the rejection of claims 26, 28, and 30.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6