Ex Parte Batra et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 2011

11423411 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NARESH BATRA and HEENA NANDU
____________

Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Intelleflex Corporation (“Intelleflex”), the real party in interest, seeks
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 8-22,
and 24-36. We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

BACKGROUND
Intelleflex’s invention is related to radio frequency identification
(RFID) systems and the communications between RFID tags and RFID
interrogators. Spec. p. 6, l. 1-p. 8, l. 2.
Claim 1 is representative
A Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, comprising:
a Digital to Analog Converter (DAC) for generating a reference
signal based on a stored digital comparison criteria value,
wherein the digital comparison criteria value is remotely
changeable; and
a mechanism for comparing an incoming interrogator signal to
the reference signal, wherein the tag performs an action
based on the comparison.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Vega 6,362,738 Mar. 26, 2002
Tuttle 2005/0040961 Feb. 24, 2005
Gomez et al. (“Gomez”) 2006/0025959 Feb. 02, 2006
Boyer et al. . (“Boyer”) 2007/0032261 Feb. 08, 2007
Chung et al. (“Chung”) 2007/0268138 Nov. 22, 2007

Claims 1-6, 8-22 and 24-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the prior art as follows:
claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-15, 17-20, 24-29 and 33-35 over Tuttle and Vega;
claims 3 and 16 over Tuttle, Vega and Gomez;
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

3
claims 8, 9, 21, 22, 30, 31 and 36 over Tuttle, Vega and Chung; and
claims 10 and 32 over Tuttle, Vega, Chung and Boyer.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner incorrectly determine that it would have been
obvious to combine Tuttle’s RFID tag with Vega’s digital comparison
criteria value generated by a Digital to Analog Converter (DAC)?
2. Did the Examiner incorrectly find that Tuttle and Vega describe
receiving a digital comparison criteria value?
3. Did the Examiner incorrectly find that Tuttle and Vega describe more
than one digital comparison criteria value stored locally?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
Intelleflex’s Specification
1. Intelleflex discloses RFID systems that include RFID tags and RFID
readers (interrogators) that communicate with one another. Spec. p. 4, ll. 19-
20; p. 7, ll. 19-23; p. 8, ll. 3-6; p. 9, ll. 6-10; Fig. 1.
2. An RFID interrogator and signals from an RFID interrogator are
included within the scope of the claimed invention. Claims 14-17, 35.
3. The problem faced by the inventor is that RFID tags backscatter when
the smallest incoming signal is detected. Spec. p. 3, l. 4.
4. As a result, when there are many RFID tags in the vicinity of an
interrogator, the interrogator must query each RFID tag to find the desired
tag which takes substantial time. Spec. p. 3, ll. 5-9.
App
App

5
respo
9-14

Tuttl
6
figur
that
trans
a me
[32],
Fi
7
RFID
signa
comp
certa
8
betw
eal 2009-0
lication 11
. The purp
nd based
.
e
. Tuttle de
es 2 and 3
includes an
ceiver (fig
mory [38]
[52], and
gures 2 an
. To perm
tag and/o
l amplitud
arator wh
in thresho
. The thre
een the in
13859
/423,411
ose of the
on the inte
scribes, re
inserted]
RFID tag
ure 3) eac
, [58] and
a receiver
Tut
d 3 depict
it adjustm
r RFID in
e detector
ich rejects
ld. ¶¶ 28,
shold can
terrogator
invention
rrogator s
ferring to
, a radio fr
transceiv
h of which
an antenna
[34], [54]
tle’s figure
the circuit
ent of the
terrogator
[40], [60]
any receiv
29, 37.
be adjuste
and the tag
4
is to set th
ignal stren
figures 2 a
equency id
er (figure
include a
[30], [50
. ¶¶ 28, 29
s 2 and 3
ry for the
sensitivity
, the receiv
to detect
ed signal
d to adjust
. ¶ 37.
e RFID ta
gth. Spec
nd 3 belo
entificatio
2) and an R
control lo
] connecte
.
are below:
transpond
of the rec
er section
the signal
whose str
the comm
gs to selec
. p. 3, ll. 8
w [number
n (RFID)
FID inter
gic circuit
d to a tran

er and inte
eiver secti
includes a
strength an
ength is be
unications
tively
-10; p. 4,
s from
system
rogator
[36], [56]
smitter
rrogator.
on of the
n RF
d a
low a
range
,

Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

5
9. The comparator and threshold are implemented by suitable
programming of the control logic [36], [56]. ¶ 37.
10. The adjustments to the receiver sensitivity of the tags and
interrogators can be made at the time of their manufacture. ¶ 38.
11. The adjustments to the interrogator can also be performed when the
interrogator is placed in service in a given facility thereby permitting
customization of the communication range based on the actual distances
between the interrogator and the tagged objects in the facility. ¶ 38.
12. The transmitter output power and/or the receiver sensitivity in the
interrogator, in the RFID tags, or both can be adjusted to prevent one
operator’s interrogator from communicating with tagged objects being
handled by other operators in the same facility. ¶¶ 9, 57.

Vega
13. Vega describes an RFID system that includes RFID readers
(interrogators) and RFID transponders (i.e., tags) that communicate with one
another. Col. 4, ll. 37-44, 58-63; col. 5, ll. 28-46; Figs. 1-3.
14. The RFID reader includes a detector circuit comprising a comparator
and a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) designed to detect a signal
transmitted by the RFID transponder only if the amplitude of the received
signal reaches a threshold voltage. Col. 5, ll. 47-54; col. 7, ll. 48-52.
15. The threshold Vth is generated by the DAC under software control by
a processor and is adjustable to accommodate different operating ranges.
Col. 5, ll. 53-56; col. 8, ll. 25-28.
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

6
16. The comparator compares a processed received signal against the
threshold Vth. Col. 8, ll. 18-20.

Gomez
17. Gomez teaches a conventional input device useful in various
electronic devices that includes a knob; a shaft; a disk, drum or coding
wheel; infrared (IR) sensors or phototransistors; and a processor for
interpolating the position of the drum, disk or coding wheel and the knob
based on sensor signals. ¶¶ 19-23, 25-27, 30, 34, 35, 36, 39-44; Figs. 1-3.
18. The sensor is a low cost sensor that outputs raw data and is able to
provide high resolution output of the position using interpolation. ¶ 40.
19. The purpose of Gomez is to increase the sensor resolution of a low
cost sensor that outputs raw data in a conventional input device using
interpolation. ¶¶ 3, 4, 16, 40, 41.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-14
Independent claim 1 recites: “a Digital to Analog Converter (DAC)
for generating a reference signal based on a stored digital comparison
criteria value, wherein the digital comparison criteria value is remotely
changeable . . . .” Claims 2, 4-6, and 8-14 ultimately depend from claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Tuttle describes comparing an incoming
interrogator signal to a reference signal and remotely changing the value
since the sensitivity is changeable at the time of their manufacture and/or in
a facility while in service since the manufacturing facility and service
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

7
facility are remote from each other. Ans. 4, citing ¶¶ 37, 38, 41. The
Examiner finds that Tuttle does not describe a DAC, but finds that Vega
describes a DAC for generating a reference signal based on a stored digital
comparison criteria value that is changeable. Ans. 4, citing col. 8, ll. 8-45.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Tuttle
to include a DAC for generating a reference signal based on a stored digital
comparison criteria value so as to compare the signal against a threshold
signal and adjust the detection range. Ans. 4-5.
Intelleflex argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness because neither Tuttle nor Vega teaches or suggests that
the stored digital comparison criteria may be remotely changed. App. Br.
22. Intelleflex argues that the Examiner applies an unreasonably broad
interpretation to “remotely changeable” in finding that Tuttle describes the
disputed limitation based on setting the sensitivity value at the time of
manufacture and/or in a facility while in service. App. Br. 23. The PTO
gives claim terms the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by those with ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the applicant's specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Intelleflex does not
meaningfully explain why the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable.
Nor does Intelleflex direct us to an explicit definition of “remotely
changeable” in its Specification. The term “remotely changeable” is a
relative term because it depends upon a reference point and the context in
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

8
which the term is used. For example, in some contexts an object may be
remote from another object when it is separated by 5 inches, while in other
contexts an object may remote from another object when it is separated by
5000 miles. The Examiner’s interpretation is reasonable. The sensitivity
value described by Tuttle is remotely changeable because adjusting or
changing the sensitivity value at a facility in service is a remote location
relative to the manufacturing facility location.
Intelleflex further argues that Tuttle only teaches adjusting the
sensitivity of the interrogator once it is placed in service in a given facility,
and does not teach adjusting the sensitivity value of the tags once they are
placed in service. App. Br. 23. We are unpersuaded by Intelleflex’s
arguments. Tuttle describes RFID tags and RFID interrogators that have
identical components including RF amplitude detectors [40], [60] and
comparators and thresholds implemented by suitable programming of the
control logic [36], [56]. ¶¶ 28, 29, 37; FFs 6-7, 9. Tuttle describes that the
adjustments can be performed when the interrogator is placed in service in a
given facility to permit customization of the communication range based on
actual distances between the interrogator and the tagged objects in the
facility. ¶¶ 37-38; FFs 8, 11. Tuttle also describes adjusting the transmitter
output power and/or receiver sensitivity in the interrogator, in the RFID tags,
or both to prevent one operator’s interrogator from communicating with
tagged objects being handled by other operators working in the same
facility. ¶¶ 9, 57; FF 12. Based on Tuttle’s description, one with ordinary
skill in the art would understand that the RFID tag sensitivity or threshold
value is also adjustable once the tags are placed in service in a facility
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

9
because: (1) the RFID interrogator sensitivity or threshold value is
adjustable when placed in service in a facility; (2) the tags and interrogators
have identical components and capabilities; and (3) the tag receiver
sensitivity is adjustable to prevent one operator’s interrogator from
communicating with tagged objects being handled by other operators
working in the same facility.
Intelleflex also argues that Vega is non-analogous art because Vega’s
RFID reader is outside the field of the inventor’s endeavor which Intelleflex
characterizes as an RFID tag. App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 3. Intelleflex
argues that RFID readers are more complex than RFID tags which are
constrained by issues of cost and limited power. App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br.
3.
There are two separate tests that define the scope of analogous art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed, and (2) if not within the same field of endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s particular problem. In
re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Intelleflex’s arguments too
narrowly characterize the inventor’s field of endeavor as RFID tags.
Intelleflex’s Specification discloses RFID systems that include RFID tags
and RFID readers (interrogators) that communicate with one another. Spec.
p. 4, ll. 19-20; p. 7, ll. 19-23; p. 8, ll. 3-6; p. 9, ll. 6-10; Fig. 1; FF1.
Moreover, Intelleflex’s claimed invention is not limited to RFID tags, but
instead specifically includes an RFID interrogator and signals from an RFID
interrogator within the scope of its claims. Claims 14-17, 35; FF 2.
Intelleflex also too narrowly characterizes Vega’s field of endeavor as RFID
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

10
readers (i.e., interrogators). Like Intelleflex’s disclosure, Vega’s description
is directed to RFID systems that include RFID readers (interrogators) and
RFID transponders (i.e., tags) that communicate with one another. Col. 4, ll.
37-44, 58-63; col. 5, ll. 28-46; Figs. 1-3; FF 13. It is unclear how Vega is
outside of the inventor’s field of endeavor when both Vega’s description and
Intelleflex’s Specification and claims are directed to RFID systems that
include RFID tags (i.e. transponders) and RFID interrogators (i.e., readers).
We are also unpersuaded by Intelleflex’s argument that Vega is not
reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s particular problem characterized by
Intelleflex as filtering signals on an RFID tag. App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 3.
Intelleflex argues that Vega’s ability to adjust the detection range is directed
toward RFID reader detection ranges and not directed to RFID tag ranges
and Vega does not describe tag circuitry or disclose any on-tag functionality.
App. Br. 22, 24; Reply Br. 3-4. The teachings of Vega are not limited to
RFID readers as argued by Intelleflex. Rather, “[a] reference must be
considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited
to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.” EWP
Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir.
1985)(emphasis omitted). Also, contrary to Intelleflex’s arguments, Vega
describes that the RFID transponders (i.e. tags) include circuitry which
functions to communicate with the RFID reader. Col. 4, ll. 37-44, 58-63; col.
5, ll. 28-46; Fig. 2; FF 13. Even if Vega is outside Intelleflex’s field of
endeavor, which we do not find, Intelleflex does not meaningfully explain
why Vega’s description of detecting RF signals above a certain adjustable
threshold voltage (col. 5, ll. 47-56; col. 7, ll. 48-53; col. 8, ll. 18-20, 25-28;
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

11
FFs 14-17) would not be reasonably pertinent to filtering signals on an RFID
tag. Based on the record before us, Vega’s description of detecting RF
signals above an adjustable threshold voltage would be relevant to filtering
signals on an RFID tag.
Last, Intelleflex argues that Tuttle and Vega do not suggest the
claimed invention and that the Examiner does not provide a specific
motivation to combine Vega’s reader parts with Tuttle’s invention, absent
hindsight. App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 4. Intelleflex argues that parts from
readers cannot be “shoehorned” into tags since RFID readers are more
complex than RFID tags and RFID tags are constrained by cost and limited
power availability. App. Br. 24.
It is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to
the specific subject matter claimed, rather inferences and creative steps that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Nor is it necessary
that the inventions of the references be physically combinable, without
change, to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Common sense teaches [] that familiar items
may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. A person of
ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Id. at
421. At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one
with ordinary skill in the art to modify Tuttle’s invention and substitute a
threshold generated by a DAC as taught by Vega for Tuttle’s threshold
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

12
implemented by programming of the control logic circuit [36], [56]. When a
structure already known in the prior art is altered by mere substitution of one
element for another known in the field, the combination is likely to be
obvious unless it does more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 550 U.S. at
416. Intelleflex does not direct us to objective evidence to demonstrate that
the combination of Vega and Tuttle would yield an unpredictable result.
We are also unpersuaded by Intelleflex’s arguments that the
motivation to combine the references is based on hindsight or impermissibly
drawn from Intelleflex’s Specification. We recognize that any judgment on
obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight
reasoning, but is proper so long as it takes into account only knowledge
which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention
was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s
disclosure. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Intelleflex does not meaningfully explain how the determination of
obviousness is based on knowledge gleaned only from Intelleflex’s
Specification. In this case, the determination of obviousness is based on the
knowledge and ordinary creativity of one with ordinary skill in the art to
substitute one known element for another element known in the field.
For all these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6 and
11-14 as obvious over Tuttle and Vega. Since Intelleflex does not separately
argue the limitations of dependent claims 8-10, for the same reasons we
sustain the rejections of claims 8 and 9 as obvious over Tuttle, Vega and
Chung and claim 10 as obvious over Tuttle, Vega, Chung and Boyer.
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

13
Claim 3
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and recites: “wherein the raw
interrogator signal is compared to the reference signal.” The Examiner finds
that Tuttle and Vega do not describe the disputed limitations but finds that
Gomez describes a raw incoming signal that is compared to a reference
signal. Ans. 6, citing Gomez ¶¶ 40, 41. Gomez teaches a conventional input
device useful in various electronic devices that includes a knob; a shaft; a
disk, drum or coding wheel; infrared (IR) sensors or phototransistors; and a
processor for interpolating the position of the drum, disk or coding wheel
and the knob based on sensor signals. ¶¶ 25-27, 30, 34, 35, 36, 39; Figs. 1-
2; FF 17. The sensor is a low cost sensor that outputs raw data and is able to
provide high resolution output of the position using interpolation. ¶¶ 40-44;
Fig. 3; FF 18. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify Tuttle and Vega so that a raw incoming interrogator signal is
compared to the reference signal in order to utilize lower cost circuitry. Ans.
6.
Intelleflex argues that Gomez is non-analogous art because Gomez is
outside the inventor’s endeavor and not reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem facing the inventor. App. Br. 31-33; Reply Br. 9-12. Intelleflex
first argues that Gomez is outside the inventor’s endeavor of RF systems and
methods using a DAC output signal for limiting the response of the tag
because Gomez is directed to motion sensing and methods of increasing
motion sensor resolution using interpolation. App. Br. 31; Reply Br. 9.
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

14
We agree that Gomez’s invention directed to sensing the position of
conventional input device components (i.e., knob, disk, drum, coding wheel)
is outside the inventor’s field of endeavor directed to RFID systems
including RFID tags and RFID interrogators that communicate with one
another. FFs 1, 179. However, even though Gomez is from a different field
of endeavor, Gomez may still be analogous art if it reasonably pertinent to
the problem that the inventor sought to solve.
A reference is reasonably pertinent if . . . because of the matter
with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to
an inventor's attention in considering his problem. Thus, the
purposes of both the invention and the prior art are important in
determining whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
problem the invention attempts to solve.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this regard, Intelleflex
argues that it is unclear how Gomez’s invention which is directed to
increasing sensor resolution using interpolation can be considered
reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s problem of comparing an incoming
raw interrogator signal to a reference signal produced by a DAC in a RF
device. App. Br. 32-33; Reply Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds that Gomez
is reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s problem because Gomez describes
comparing a raw incoming signal to a reference signal. Ans. 11.
We agree that Gomez is not reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s
problem. The problem faced by the inventor is that RFID tags backscatter
(i.e., reflect signals) when the smallest incoming signal is detected and when
there are many RFID tags in the vicinity of an interrogator, the interrogator
must query each RFID tag to find the desired tag, taking a substantial
amount of time. Spec. 3, ll. 4-9; FFs 3-4. The purpose of the invention is to
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

15
set the RFID tags to selectively respond based on the interrogator signal
strength. Spec. p. 3, ll. 8-10, p. 4, 9-14; FF 5. The purpose of Gomez is to
increase the sensor resolution of a low cost sensor that outputs raw data in a
conventional input device using interpolation. ¶¶ 3, 4, 16, 40, 41; FF 20.
Based on the record before us, Gomez’s description of increasing sensor
resolution by interpolation in an input device is not reasonably pertinent to
the inventor’s problem of querying each RFID tag by an interrogator to find
the desired tag when there are multiple RFID tags in the vicinity which takes
a substantial amount of time.
For all these reasons Gomez is non-analogous and we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 3 as obvious over Tuttle, Vega, and Gomez.

Claim 27-35
Claim 27 is independent and recites: [a] method of setting tag
response criteria, comprising: receiving a digital comparison criteria value;
storing the digital comparison criteria value . . . .” The Examiner finds that
the combination of Tuttle and Vega, as discussed before with respect to
claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-14, describes all of the claim limitations. Ans. 3-5.
Intelleflex argues that claim 27 requires the tag to receive (e.g., via RF
signal sent from an interrogator remotely) a digital comparison criteria
value. App. Br. 25-26. Intelleflex argues that neither Tuttle nor Vega
teaches or suggests receiving the value. App. Br. 25-26. Intelleflex
specifically argues that Tuttle only teaches setting the tag’s sensitivity at the
time of manufacture and that the sensitivity is not received by the tag. App.
Br. 26.
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

16
Intelleflex’s arguments are unpersuasive because claim 27 does not
require the tag to receive the digital criteria value via an RF signal or from a
remote interrogator. Claim 27 merely requires the tag to receive the digital
criteria value or threshold. Tuttle’s RFID tag receives a digital criteria value
or threshold when the threshold is adjusted at the time of manufacture. ¶ 38;
FF 10. Furthermore, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Tuttle’s RFID tag also receives a digital criteria value or threshold based on
Tuttle’s description of adjusting the receiver sensitivity in the RFID tags to
prevent one operator’s interrogator from communicating with tagged objects
handled by other operators working in the same facility. ¶¶ 9, 57; FF 12.
For the same reasons as explained before with respect to claims 1-2,
4-6 and 8-14, we are unpersuaded by Intelleflex’s repeated arguments that:
(1) Vega is non-analogous art; and (2) there is not a proper motivation to
combine Tuttle and Vega. App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 7-8.
For all these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 27-29 and 33-
35 as obvious over Tuttle and Vega. Intelleflex does not separately argue
the limitations of dependent claims 30-32. For the same reasons we sustain
the rejection of claims 30 and 31 as obvious over Tuttle, Vega and Chung
and the rejection of claim 32 as obvious over Tuttle, Vega, Chung and
Boyer.

Claims 15-22, 24-26 and 36
Independent claims 15 and 36 each recite: “more than one digital
comparison criteria value used by the DAC to generate the reference signal
is stored . . . .” Claims 16-22 and 24-26 ultimately depend from claim 15.
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

17
The Examiner finds that Tuttle describes that more than one value is stored
when the value is changed or adjusted. Ans. 4, citing Tuttle ¶¶ 37-38.
Intelleflex argues that neither Tuttle nor Vega teaches or suggests
storing multiple reference values in the tags or in the interrogators. App. Br.
25-26, 34. We agree. The Examiner does not direct us to, and we cannot
find, where Tuttle or Vega describes more than one digital comparison
criteria value is stored. Tuttle describes that the threshold value may be
adjusted. ¶¶ 9, 37-38, 57; FFs 10-12. However, contrary to the Examiner’s
findings, setting the threshold value and/or adjusting the threshold value
does not necessarily mean that more than one value is stored. When the
threshold value is set or adjusted, it may be the case that the previous
threshold value is rewritten as the new threshold value (i.e., erased and
replaced).
For all these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 15, 17-
20 and 24-26 as obvious over Tuttle and Vega. As applied by the Examiner
neither Gomez nor Chung make up for the deficiencies of Tuttle and Vega.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 as obvious
over Tuttle, Vega and Gomez and the rejection of claims 21, 22 and 36 as
obvious over Tuttle, Vega and Chung.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-14, 27-29 and 33-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tuttle and Vega.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8, 9, 30 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable Tuttle, Vega and Chung.
Appeal 2009-013859
Application 11/423,411

18
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 10 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tuttle, Vega, Chung and Boyer.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 15, 17-20 and 24-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tuttle and Vega.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 3 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tuttle, Vega and Gomez.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 21, 22 and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tuttle, Vega and Chung.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc