Ex parte FALLAH

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 1997

07822207 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 1997)

Application for patent filed January 17, 1992.1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MICHEL FALLAH
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1774
Application 07/822,2071
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, TORCZON, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 9, 10,
15, and 16. The other claims remaining in the application,
Claims 11-14, have been objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. We reverse.
Appeal No. 96-1774
Application No. 07822,207
2
Appellants’ Claim 9 is reproduced as follows:
9. A system of personalized communication between a
post and moving bodies which come into the vicinity of
the post, wherein said system uses an exchange protocol
that begins by means of a signal transmission
initializer on said post which provides for a
transmission of an initializing signal from said post,
which said initializing signal is common to the
different moving bodies that arrive in the vicinity of
the post and said exchange protocol continues by means
of an identification signal transmission means on each
of said moving bodies which provides for the
transmission of an identification signal by each moving
body which is sent to said post, said transmission of
an identification signal by one first moving body
occurring at the end of a duration related to a
duration value of an intrinsic code associated with
said first moving body, said duration beginning in said
moving body from the receipt of the initializing
signal, said identification signal comprising a data
corresponding to said duration value.
The Examiner’s Answer lists the following prior art:
Johansson 5,150,114 Sep. 22, 1992
(filed Nov. 6, 1990)
Carsten et al. (Carsten) 3,898,619 Aug. 5, 1975
Appeal No. 96-1774
Application No. 07822,207
3
OPINION
The invention
The disclosed invention is a system of personalized
communication between a post (such as a toll booth) and moving
bodies (such as vehicles travelling a toll road). The invention
is concerned with transmitting identification signals from the
moving bodies to the post.
The post initiates communication with an initialization
signal at a certain time. Each moving body has an intrinsic code
with a duration value associated with it. The moving body
responds to the initialization signal with a transmission
occurring at the end of a duration related to the duration value.
The transmission is of an identification signal.
The identification signal comprises a datum corresponding to
the duration value. In a preferred embodiment, the
identification signal is a specific character used to define the
duration. Specification at 3, lines 9-19. A character may be
digital, alphabetical, or alphanumerical, for example.
Specification at 3, lines 23-29. The moving body could send the
first character of its intrinsic code or it could send another
type of identification signal that is appropriate to it.
Specification at 10, lines 2-5.
Appeal No. 96-1774
Application No. 07822,207
4
The Johansson reference
The Johansson reference also discloses a system of
personalized communication between a post (such as a toll booth)
and moving bodies (such as vehicles travelling a toll road).
As with Appellant, Johansson’s post initiates communication
with an initialization signal at a certain time. Each moving
body has an intrinsic code with a duration value associated with
it. The moving body responds to the initialization signal with a
transmission occurring at the end of a duration related to the
duration value.
In Johansson the moving body’s transmission conveys
identifying information only in its timing. That is, the
transmissions of all the moving bodies differ only in that they
occur after different durations following the initialization
signal.
The Carsten reference
The Carsten reference also discloses a system of
personalized communication between a post (such as a toll booth)
and moving bodies (such as vehicles travelling a toll road).
As with Appellant and Johansson, Carsten’s post initiates
communication with an initialization signal. Carsten’s moving
bodies respond with a coded signal which is unique to a
Appeal No. 96-1774
Application No. 07822,207
5
particular responder. Unlike Johansson, Carsten’s moving bodies
do not respond after different durations.
The rejection
Claims 9, 10, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Johansson and Carsten. The claims all
require that the identification signal transmitted by the moving
body comprise data corresponding to the delay in responding to
the initialization signal.
The examiner interprets “data” broadly to include the delay
itself. Such an interpretation would render the independent
claims anticipated by Johansson. Appellants argue that the
content, not the timing, of the signal must contain the data
corresponding to the delay. We agree with Appellants.
In the claimed invention, the identification signal
comprises (is made up of at least) data corresponding to the
duration value. In Johansson, the signal transmitted at the end
of the duration is not made up of any data. Every signal is the
same, differing only in the timing.
This is a significant difference between Johansson and the
claimed subject matter. We discern no suggestion in the prior
art to modify Johansson by including corresponding data in the
signal that is transmitted at the end of the variable duration.
Appeal No. 96-1774
Application No. 07822,207
6
The examiner says that it would have been obvious because
the artisan seeking to implement Johansson would have found it
necessary to implement an identification method in order to
distinguish different transponders in the system. Examiner’s
Answer at 3. We disagree. Johansson already distinguishes the
transponders in the system with the timing. The examiner offers
no reason why an artisan would modify Johansson’s system, which
already distinguishes different transponders according to
variable delays, by transmitting at the end of the delay
redundant data corresponding to the delay rather than
transmitting no data at all.
Appeal No. 96-1774
Application No. 07822,207
7
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 9, 10, 15, and 16 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
RICHARD L. TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1774
Application No. 07822,207
Vincent J. Sunderdick
Crystal Square Five - Fourth Floor
1755 Jifferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202