Ex Parte Devos et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201311088317 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN A. DEVOS, MICHAEL M. BLYTHE, KENNETH L. ANTHONY, and QUINN V. JEMMOTT ____________ Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before GAY ANN SPAHN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges. SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 and 35-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 2 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed subject matter relates to a system which may “use any number of signaling interaction methods to enable collaboration and interaction between components of a single token, multiple tokens, and/or objects in the environment of a token,” and “[m]ore specifically, through the use of radio frequencies or other signaling methods, interactive tokens may collaborate and interact with other tokens by having an ‘awareness’ of nearby tokens, identifying locations of nearby tokens and objects, establishing relationship information with other tokens or objects, and/or sharing information among and/or between tokens and nearby objects,” thereby enhancing user experience. Spec. 2-3, para. [0014]; see also Spec. 15, para. [0046]. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A system comprising: a first token associated with a display device and configured to be selectively repositioned by a user with respect to said display device, said first token having at least one interactive module configured to interact with a second token, said second token also associated with said display device. Rejections The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review: I. claims 2-5, 17-22, 24-26, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement; II. claims 1-9, 24, 26, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gilboa (US 5,853,327, issued Dec. 29, 1998); Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 3 III. claims 10, 12-23, 25, and 35-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa and Ilan1 (WO 01/15059 A2, published Mar. 1, 2001); and IV. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa, Ilan, and Weiner (US 6,690,156 B1, issued Feb. 10, 2004). OPINION Rejection I – Lack of Written Description Claim 2 recites that “said interactive module is selectively attachable to and detachable from said first token and, if attached, adds a capability to said first token,” and claims 3-5 depend from claim 2. App. Br., Clms. App’x. Emphasis added. Id. Claim 17 recites “at least one interactive module configured to be selectively attached to, and detached from, said first token,” and claims 18-22 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 17. Id. Emphasis added. Independent claim 24 recites, inter alia, “a plurality of modules, each of which is configured to be selectively attached to said first token,” and claims 25, 26, 37, and 38 depend from claim 24. Id. Emphasis added. The Examiner determines that Appellants’ “[S]pecification does not contain adequate support for” the above-quoted and emphasized language of claims 2, 17, and 24 and therefore, these claims contain new matter. Ans. 3- 4. The Examiner notes Appellants argue “that support for this limitation can be found in Fig. 5 and its associated text.” Ans. 3. However, the Examiner 1 Although the first-named inventor is actually Meir Morag, both Appellants and the Examiner refer to this reference as “Ilan,” we will likewise refer to the reference as Ilan for consistency and to avoid confusion. Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 4 determines that “[t]he cited sections of the [S]pecification merely demonstrate the various functional types of interactive modules which may be integrated into the token,” but “are silent about selective attachment or detachment of the interactive modules.” Id. For each of claims 2, 17, and 24, Appellants argue that since the originally filed Specification specifically discloses that “‘[a]s illustrated in FIG. 6, collaboration and interaction of an interactive token (40) may be enhanced by the use of the stackable or connectable modules illustrated in FIG. 5,’” the Specification adequately supports the claim limitations in question. App. Br. 11-12 (citing Spec. 11, para. [0034]). Appellants also argue that “Fig. 6 of Appellant[s’] specification explicitly illustrates a module 630 being attached to several other modules such as a base unit 600, a third module 610, and a second module 620.” Id. Furthermore, with respect to claims 2 and 17, Appellants also argue that “[t]he fact that the modules recited in the present specification are connectable is sufficient to show that they are selectively coupled to the token and thereby selectively detachable and attachable to the token.” App. Br. 11-12. The Examiner responds that “Appellant[s’] claimed selectively attachable and detachable module . . . encompasses substantially different subject matter as opposed to a module which is merely connectable.” Ans. 11. Appellants reply that they are “uncertain what distinction the Examiner is here attempting to draw between attachable/detachable and connectable and how any such distinction could be relevant.” Reply Br. 5-6. We note the Specification states that “[a]ccording to the exemplary module embodiment illustrated in FIG. 5, the numerous modules may be Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 5 added to a base of an interactive token (40; FIG. 4) to perform the above- identified functions [discussed in paragraph [0032]].” Spec. 10, para. [0033]. Emphasis added. An ordinary and customary meaning of the verb “add” is “to join, annex, or unite (as one thing to another) so as to bring about an increase (as in number, size, or importance) or so as to form one aggregate,” an ordinary and customary meaning of the verb “attach” is “make fast or join (as by string or glue): BIND, FASTEN, TIE,” and an ordinary and customary meaning of the verb “connect” is “to join, fasten or link together usu. by means of something intervening.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, copyright 1993, accessed at http://lionreference.chadwyck.com (last visited: September 8, 2013). From the definitions of the verbs “add,” “attach,” and “connect,” all three verbs have the function of “joining” in common. Thus, based on the Specification’s disclosure that the “modules may be added to a base of an interactive token” (Spec. 10, para. [0033]), and the disclosure from Specification paragraph [0034] and drawing Figure 6 relied upon by Appellants, we agree that the originally filed Specification sufficiently supports the claim recitations concerning the selective attachment and/or detachment of the modules to the token. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 17, and 24, and claims 3-5, 18-22, 25, 26, 37, and 38 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 6 Rejection II – Anticipation based on Gilboa Claims 1-9 The Examiner finds that Gilboa discloses a system including, inter alia, “a first token ([knight] 1430) . . . , the first token having at least one interactive module ([transceiver] 250) configured to interact with a second token.” Ans. 4-5 (citing Gilboa, col. 21, ll. 25-25, “knight token 1430 is prohibited from moving past castle gate token 1470 until gate is opened by meeting certain game conditions”). Appellants argue that the interactive module (transceiver 250) in Gilboa’s first token (knight 1430) is not “configured to interact with a second token” (castle gate token 1470). App. Br. 13-14. More particularly, Appellants argue that “no playing piece taught by Gilboa actually interacts with any other playing piece,” but rather, Gilboa’s playing pieces “only interact with a processor of the system of Gilboa,” or “interact with a game board 1410 having cells 1440.” App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 8. As support for their argument, Appellants point out “Gilboa teaches that ‘[p]rocessing unit 140 is preferably programmed in accordance with the game played, such that inputs received from different elements of the system are correctly interpreted and appropriate outputs are provided,’” and “Gilboa also teaches that ‘each piece 120 (or type of piece) generates a unique answer signal and, therefore, pieces 120 can be uniquely identified by processor unit 140, as described below.” App. Br. 14 (citing Gilboa, col. 10, ll. 5-9 and 34-37). The Examiner responds that “Gilboa discloses a first token which interacts with a second token,” because “[t]he system senses the position of the tokens by communicating with them via transceiver (250) and tracks Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 7 their positions relative to each other.” Ans 11 (citing Gilboa, col. 21, ll. 25- 25). The Examiner notes that an ordinary and customary meaning of the verb “‘interact’” is “‘to act upon another,’” and finds that “Gilboa discloses tokens which act upon one another in various ways, including sounding a bell or opening a gate when the knight moves in proximity to the castle.” Id. (citing Gilboa, col. 21, ll. 40-55). Appellants reply that “the knight and castle taught by Gilboa interact with a game board 1410 having cells 1440,” and the “game board 1410 . . . track[s] the relative positions of these tokens,” but “Gilboa never teaches or suggests that the tokens interact with each other.” Reply Br. 8. Gilboa discloses an electronic game board system including a game table 100 associated with a processing unit 140, i.e., a personal computer, and a game board surface 110 having a plurality of cells 150. Col. 9, ll. 44- 50 and Fig. 9. A plurality of game pieces 120 are placed on at least some of the cells 150 and may be moved to other cells 150 in accordance with prescribed rules of a specific board game. Col. 9, ll. 50-54. Circuitry for determining the location and identifying playing pieces 120 on board 110 is included in game table 100. Col. 9, l. 65 to col. 10, l. 1. Processing unit 140 is programmed in accordance with the game played, such that inputs received from different elements of the system are correctly interpreted and appropriate outputs are provided to different devices in the system. Col. 10, ll. 5-10. Processing unit 140 is associated with a display 145 and a sound producing device to provide additional audio-visual capability. Col. 10, ll. 10-12. Game table 100 communicates with processor 140 and associated devices, via a cable, infrared communication or other means to perform various functions in response to moves by players. Col. 10, ll. 12-16. Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 8 Each of Gilboa’s game pieces 120 have circuitry including a coil 240, which preferably functions as a receiving-transmitting antenna, and a transceiver 250. Col. 10, ll. 18-24. Coil 240 is adapted to receive an excitation query signal, i.e., coded signal, which is generated by an excitation coil 220 under each cell 150 of game table 100, as an input to transceiver 250 in game piece 120. Col. 10, ll. 20-23 and 66-67. Based on the query signal, transceiver 250 generates an answer signal which is transmitted by coil 240 and the answer signal is sensed by a sensor coil in an upper portion 200 of game table 100 which receives answer signals from a plurality of cells 150 of the game board surface 110. Col. 10, ll. 23-29. Coil 240 and transceiver 250 together form a transponder which responds to query signals with an answer signal. Col. 10, ll. 29-33. Each game piece 120 generates a unique answer signal which can be uniquely identified by processing unit 140 and a given game piece 120 can be identified based on the frequency of its answer signal. Col. 10, ll. 34-45. The identity of at least some of the game pieces 120 can be varied by adding or replacing elements of transceiver 250. Col. 10, ll. 46-48. Various circuit elements, i.e., plug-in circuits, are adapted for mounting to preselected locations on game pieces 120 with appropriate electronic connectors for connecting the plug-in circuit to transceiver 250. Col. 10, ll. 49-53. The external appearances of the plug- in circuits relate to their respective identities in the context of the game played, e.g., the plug-in circuits may be embodied in the form of replaceable hats each defining a different game entity, whereby codes defined by the different plug-in circuits correspond to the respective game entities. Col. 10, ll. 53-60. Variations of the answer signal code may be activated-through a code-controlling switch in transceiver 250 which is switched to an Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 9 appropriate position upon connection of the plug-in circuit to game piece 120 or by a capacitor which changes frequency generated by transceiver 250. Col. 10, ll. 60-65. With respect to Gilboa’s specific embodiment in Figure 21 entitled the “Game of Knights,” playing pieces, such as knights 1430, horses 1450, and cannons 1460, are positioned on cells 1440 of game board 1410, and when removed therefrom or moved to another cell 1440, these actions are sensed by a sensing array in the game board 1410 and a signal is communicated to a game control computer which activates various audio/visual indications. Col. 21, ll. 20-34. Different audio/visual indications are generated in conjunction with each type of event which occurs and the indications depend on the identities of the game pieces involved in the event and on board conditions, such as the absolute and relative positions of the involved game pieces on the game board 1410. Col. 21, ll. 34-39. For instance, when a knight 1430 is moved, a footsteps sound may be activated, if a sword is attached to a knight 1430, a different sound may be activated when the knight 1430 moves, or when a knight 1430 approaches gate 1470 of castle 1420, a bell sound may be activated. Col. 21, ll. 41-45. In view of the above-discussed disclosure of Gilboa, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, because the interactive module (transceiver 250) of Gilboa’s first token (knight 1430) has no structure to make it be “configured to interact with a second token.” Indeed, Gilboa’s game pieces 120, having transceiver 250 and coil 240 therein, are described as interacting with both the processor 140 and the cells 150 of the game board surface 110, but do not interact with other game pieces 120. In other words, the transceiver 250 of Gilboa’s game pieces 120 is circuitry that interacts with Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 10 the processor 140 and the cells 150 of the game board 110 by sensing and sending and receiving signals, but the game pieces 120 do not have circuitry to interact, i.e., communicate by sending and receiving signals, with another game piece 120. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-9 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gilboa. Claims 24, 26, and 28 Independent claim 24 is directed to an interactive display system including, inter alia, “a plurality of modules, . . . each of said modules providing a different capability to said token if attached thereto.” The Examiner finds that Gilboa discloses “an interactive display system comprising . . . a plurality of modules, . . . each of the modules providing a different capability to the token if attached thereto.” Ans. 6 (citing Gilboa, col. 10, ll. 45-65). Appellants argue that “Gilboa, at best, teaches that ‘in a preferred embodiment of the invention, the identity of at least some of pieces 120 can be varied by adding or replacing elements of transceiver circuit 250,” and “‘the plug-in members may be embodied in the form of replaceable hats, each containing a different plug-in circuit and defining a different game entity.’” App. Br. 17-18 (citing Gilboa, col. 10, ll. 48-48 and 56-58). In other words, Appellants argue that “Gilboa merely teaches that a plug-in member merely identifies or defines a game entity and does not teach or suggest a module which provides different capabilities to the token.” Id. The Examiner responds that “Gilboa discloses a game piece containing a transceiver whose function can be modified by various ‘plug- Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 11 in’ elements,” and “[t]he game piece can transmit different answer signals to the system depending on which element is installed.” Ans. 12 (citing Gilboa, col. 10, ll. 45-65). More particularly, the Examiner finds that “[t]he element may identify the game piece as a different game entity . . . or provide the game piece with enhanced or different capabilities.” Id. (citing Gilboa, col. 21, ll. 40-45, “if a sword is attached to the given knight, a different sound option may be activated when the knight moves”). Appellants reply that Gilboa’s “plug-in circuits . . . merely modify the output of the existing transceiver circuit 250 so as to give the game piece a specific ‘identity’ within the context of the game,” but “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion here of the claimed ‘modules providing a different capability to said token if attached thereto.’” Reply Br. 10. An ordinary and customary meaning of the noun “capability” is “the quality or state of being capable physically, intellectually, morally, or legally: CAPACITY, ABILITY,” and an ordinary and customary meaning of the noun “identity” is “sameness of essential or generic character in different examples or instances.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, copyright 1993, accessed at http://lionreference.chadwyck.com (last visited: September 8, 2013). Based on the ordinary and customary meanings of the nouns “capability” and “identity,” we cannot agree with the Examiner that Gilboa’s disclosure of plug-in circuits which give the game piece different identities (i.e., character) satisfies the claim language of providing a different capability (i.e., capacity or ability) to the token if attached thereto. Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 12 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 24, and claims 26 and 38 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gilboa. Rejection III – Obviousness based on Gilboa and Ilan Claims 10, 12, 13, and 35 Claims 10, 12, 13, and 35 all depend, either directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1. App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12, 13, and 35 relies on the erroneous finding that Gilboa discloses a first token (knight 1430) having at least one interactive module (transceiver 250) configured to interact with a second token (castle gate 1470). Ans. 7-8 and 10. The Examiner does not make any finding that Ilan teaches a first token having at least one interactive module configured to interact with a second token in order to cure the deficiency of Gilboa discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Id. Thus, for the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12, 13, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa and Ilan. Claims 14, 15, 16, 23, and 36 Appellants argue independent claim 14 and have not presented arguments for the patentability of claims 15, 16, 23, and 36 apart from claim 14. See Ans. 22-30. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011), we select independent claim 14 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, and claims 15, 16, 23, and 36 fall with claim 14. Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 13 Independent claim 14 is directed to a display system including, inter alia, “a display device; . . . a controller . . . said controller is configured to drive said display device to simultaneously display an image and transfer data to said first token.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner finds that “Gilboa teaches a display system comprising a display device (145) . . . [and] a controller”; however, “Gilboa does not specifically teach . . . the controller is configured to drive the display device to simultaneously display an image and transfer data to the first token.” Ans. 8. To cure the deficiency of Gilboa, the Examiner turns to Ilan to disclose “the controller is configured to drive the display device to simultaneously display an image and transfer data to the first token.” Id. (citing Ilan, p. 4). Appellants argue that “Ilan does not teach that an image is displayed on the display device simultaneously while data is being transferred to a first token,” because “Ilan, at best, teaches that ‘[a]n application image is projected (or generated) on the screen and the objects are normally placed on the screen, usually, on specific areas of the application image with respect to their current status in the application.’” App. Br. 23 (quoting Ilan, p. 8, ll. 3-6). The Examiner responds that “Gilboa and Ilan both disclose a system which detects the movement of game pieces and displays their positions on a video screen,” and “[t]he systems both maintain an image of the game on their respective video screens while the system is monitoring the game pieces for movement.” Ans. 13 (citing Gilboa, Figs. 1-5, and Ilan, p. 9, and Figs. 3 and 4a). The Examiner also responds that “Ilan discloses transferring data to a game token,” and therefore, “the combination of Gilboa and Ilan Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 14 teaches, or at a minimum suggests, [the contested] limitation.” Id. (citing Ilan, p. 4, “system sends light signal sequence to game objects”). Ilan discloses a system for detecting or determining the location of a physical object on a display device or screen. Title, Abstr., and p. 4, ll. 9-10. The system 100 includes a receiver 104 for receiving wireless signals from the object devices 108A, 108B, and 108C,2 a processor (host computer 106) connected to the receiver 104, and a display interface connected between the processor (host computer 106) and the screen or display 102. P. 4, ll. 10-14 and p. 8, ll. 16-21. The processor (host computer 106) provides pattern display commands to the screen or display 102 via the display interface and the wireless signals are of the patterns. P. 4, ll. 13-15. The object devices 108A, 108B, and 108C are placed on the screen or display 102, which can be either horizontal or vertical, such as a white board. P. 4, ll. 15-16. Each of the object devices 108A, 108B, and 108C can include at least one optical detector 116 facing the screen or display 102, a digital logic unit 112 connected to the optical detectors 116, and a wireless transmitter 110 connected to the digital logic unit 112. P. 4, ll. 17-19 and p. 8, ll. 24-28. The optical detectors 116 detect at least one pattern produced by the screen or display 102. P. 4, ll. 19-20. The digital logic unit 112 produces a signal, respective of the detected pattern, and the wireless transmitter 110 transmits a wireless signal. P. 4, ll.20-21. The pattern can include at least one light signal sequence. 2 We note that Ilan’s Specification lists reference characters 108A, 108B, and 108C using upper case letters, whereas Ilan’s Figure 3 depicts the same reference characters with lower case letters. Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 15 Ilan’s Figure 3 is an illustration of screen 102 and object devices 108A, 108B, and 108C. P. 9, ll. 1-2. The screen or display 102 produces an image 120, such as a map of the world, and each object device 108A, 108B, and 108C is placed over a specific area within image 120, such as North America, Africa, and Asia, respectively. P. 9, ll. 3-6. Ilan’s Figure 4A is an illustration of screen or display 102 and object device 108A, with a predetermined light pattern 122. P. 9, ll. 7-9. Screen or display 102 produces a light pattern 122 at a plurality of locations, and the screen or display 102 produces a moving pattern, which moves in a scanning manner all over the screen or display 102. P. 9, ll. 13-15. The path of the pattern covers the entire screen so that it will be intercepted by any of the object devices which are placed on the screen and object device 108A is able to detect the pattern 122 as it is produced thereunder. P. 9, ll. 15-18. When detector 116 detects the pattern 122, it produces a respective signal and provides it to the digital logic unit 112. P. 9, ll. 24-25. The digital logic unit 112 performs operations on the received signal, produces a trigger or code, and provides it to transmitter 110. P. 9, ll. 25-26. Upon the production of the trigger or code, the transmitter 110 wirelessly transmits a signal to the receiver 104, and receiver 104 provides the received signal to the processor (host computer 106), which in turn determines the location of object device 108A over screen 102. From the above disclosure, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument, because Ilan’s host computer 106 satisfies claim 14’s language of being a “controller [which] is configured to drive said display devices to simultaneously display an image and transfer data to said first token.” See App. Br., Clms. App’x. More particularly, the host computer 106 drives the Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 16 display device (screen 102) to simultaneously display an image (Figure 3’s map of the world 120) and transfer data (light pattern 122) to said first token (object device 108A). Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14, and claims 15, 16, 23, and 36 which fall therewith , under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa and Ilan. Claims 17-22 Claim 17 depends from claim 14 and further includes “at least one interactive module . . . , wherein said interactive module adds a capability to said token.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. Claims 18-22 all depend either directly or indirectly from claim 17. Id. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 relies upon the erroneous finding that Gilboa’s plug-in circuits to transceiver 250 add a capability to the token. Ans. 9 (citing Gilboa, col. 10, lines 45-65). For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 24, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Gilboa’s plug-ins do not add capabilities to the token. App. Br. 25. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, and claims 18-22 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa and Ilan. Claim 25 and 37 Claims 25 and 37 both depend directly from independent claim 24. App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 37 relies on the erroneous finding that Gilboa discloses a plurality of modules, wherein each of said modules provides a different capability to said token if attached thereto. Ans. 9-10. The Examiner does not make any finding that Ilan teaches a first token having at least one interactive module configured to interact with a second token in order to cure the deficiency of Gilboa Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 17 discussed supra with respect to claim 24. Id. Thus, for the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 24, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa and Ilan. Rejection IV – Obviousness based on Gilboa, Ilan, and Weiner Claim 11 depends from claim 10 which in turn depends from claim 1. App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 relies on the erroneous finding that Gilboa discloses a first token (knight 1430) having at least one interactive module (transceiver 250) configured to interact with a second token (castle gate 1470). Ans. 10. The Examiner does not make any finding that Ilan teaches a first token having at least one interactive module configured to interact with a second token in order to cure the deficiency of Gilboa discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Id. Thus, for the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa and Ilan. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 2-5, 17-22, 24- 26, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement; claims 1-9, 24, 26, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gilboa; claims 10, 12, 13, 17-22, 25, 35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa and Ilan; and claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa, Ilan, and Weiner. Appeal 2011-008657 Application 11/088,317 18 We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-16, 23, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilboa and Ilan. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation