Ex Parte Durgin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12505916 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

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.
12/505,916 07/20/2009 Gregory D. Durgin BPSTL0004BS 3145
27939 7590 02/25/2016
Philip H. Burrus, IV
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3648
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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 GREGORY D. DURGIN
____________

Appeal 2013-003131
Application 12/505,9161
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 According to the Appellant, “[t]he real party in interest is
Thingamagigawerks, LLC.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-003131
Application 12/505,916

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A reflected interferometry system for determining a location
of an object in free space, comprising:
a plurality of radio frequency transceivers;
a location determination module coupled the plurality of
radio frequency transceivers; and
one or more tags, each of the one or more tags comprising:
an antenna;
a controller; and
a switch, responsive to the controller, and operative
to change a radar cross section of each antenna
of the one or more tags by selectively altering a
load impedance of the each antenna;
wherein each of the plurality of radio frequency
transceivers is configured to transmit one radio
frequency signal and receive multi-path backscattered
return signals from each of the one or more tags, each
of the multi-path backscattered return signals having a
unique identifier corresponding to one of the one or
more tags modulated therein due to the controller
switching the switch;
wherein the location determination module is configured
to determine the location of each of the one or more
tags by determining a phase shift between the one radio
frequency signal and the each of the multi-path
backscattered return signals at each transceiver.

Rejections
Claims 1–4, 6, 9–11, 13–16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fullerton (US 7,479,884 B1, iss. Jan. 20,
2009) and Nitzan (US 2006/0001525 A1, pub. Jan. 5, 2006).
Appeal 2013-003131
Application 12/505,916

3
Claims 5, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fullerton, Nitzan, and Menache (US 7,009,561 B2, iss.
Mar. 7, 2006).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fullerton, Nitzan, and Whitesmith (US 6,577,238 B1, iss. June 10, 2003).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fullerton, Nitzan, and Knadle (US 2006/0267772 A1, pub. Nov. 30, 2006).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fullerton, Nitzan, and Fowler (US 2008/0231448 A1, pub. Sept. 25, 2008).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fullerton, Nitzan, and Eschenbach (US 6,181,253 B1, iss. Jan. 30, 2001).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to a reflected interferometry system
for determining a location of an object in free space that requires, among
other things, a plurality of radio frequency transceivers configured to receive
multi-path backscattered return signals from a tag. See Appeal Br. 19,
Claims App. Independent claim 13 is a method claim, which is similar to
claim 1, as it recites “receiving, at each of the plurality of transceivers,
multi-path backscattered return signals from one or more tags.” Id. at 21–
22, Claims App. Independent claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 13.
Id. at 23, Claims App.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 13,
and 19, based on the combination of teachings from Fullerton and Nitzan,
fail to teach “a plurality of transceivers, where each transceiver is configured
to transmit one radio frequency signal and receive multi-path return signals
Appeal 2013-003131
Application 12/505,916

4
containing unique identifiers from each of the tags.” Appeal Br. 15, 16; see
Appeal Br. 11–14. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
At the outset, we note that in response to the Appellant’s argument the
Examiner offers the following interpretation of the term “multi-path” as
required by claim 1:
The term multi-path as used by the applicant is understood to
mean that the tag transmits in two directions and not the standard
definition in radar where signals arrive at the same receiver using
more than one route.
Ans. 3. The Examiner fails to explain how the foregoing interpretation of
“multi-path” is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
Specification as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, we
understand the term “multi-path” to be similar to the Examiner’s proffered
“standard definition,” i.e., “signals [that] arrive at the same receiver using
more than one route.” See also, e.g., NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY (18th
Ed. 2002) (defining “multi-path” as “[m]ultiple routes taken by RF energy
between the transmitter and the receiver.”).
The Examiner relies on Fullerton, and not Nitzan, to teach a plurality
of radio frequency transceivers configured to receive multi-path
backscattered return signals from a tag as required by claim 1. Final Act. 2–
4. In response to the Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds that
Fullerton’s transceivers, e.g., 1006 and 1010, correspond to the claimed
plurality of transceivers because Fullerton’s tag 1004 reemits a signal to both
the transceiver 1006 and 1010. Ans. 4 (citing Fullerton, Figs. 10c, 10d); see
Final Act. 2 (citing Fullerton, col. 8, ll. 17–56). However, the Examiner’s
finding is based on a misinterpretation of the term “multi-path.” As pointed
out by the Appellant, “[e]ach of Fullerton’s embodiments depends upon
Appeal 2013-003131
Application 12/505,916

5
direct-line transmission of signals from [a] retro reflector to [an] interrogator
regardless of angle.” Appeal Br. 12. In other words, the signals that arrive
at Fullerton’s transceivers 1006 and 1010 do not use more than one route.
As such, Fullerton’s transceivers do not correspond to the plurality of radio
frequency transceivers configured to receive multi-path backscattered return
signals from a tag as required by independent claim 1, and similarly,
required by independent claims 13 and 19.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 19,
and dependent claims 2–4, 6, 9–11, and 14–16 is not sustained. The
remaining rejections proffered by the Examiner do not establish that any
other cited reference cures the deficiency in the rejection of the independent
claims. See Final Action 3–6. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, and 20.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20.

REVERSED