Ex Parte Greenlee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201412191473 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/191,473 08/14/2008 Kenneth L. Greenlee RSW920080213US1 1907 58139 7590 12/19/2014 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. P.O. BOX 131851 DALLAS, TX 75313 EXAMINER OBINIYI, PAULSON IDOWU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2014 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 KENNETH L. GREENLEE, CHRISTIAN L. HUNT, and ANNE I. RYAN ______________ Appeal 2012-007146 Application 12/191,473 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-007146 Application 12/191,473 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This invention relates to an RFID tag 10 that has a timed operational window 12, which can comprise one or more predetermined periods of time (e.g., hours). For example, as shown in Figure 1, the operational window 12 is set such that the RFID tag 10 is to be active only between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM each day. If the current time is 3:00 PM, the RFID tag 10 responds/broadcasts because the current time is within the operational window 12. If, however, as shown in Figure 2, the current time is 8:00 AM, the RFID tag 10 does not respond/broadcast because the current time is not within the operational window 12. Claim 1 is exemplary. 1. A method for time-based operation of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, comprising: associating an operational window with the RFID tag; determining if a current time is within the operational window; operating the RFID tag if the current time is within the operational window; and not operating the RFID tag if the current time is outside the operational window. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5–7, 11–13, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimura (US 2008/0024281 A1, Jan. 31, 2008) and Turner (US 2002/0024422 A1, Feb. 28, 2002). Ans. 5–11. Appeal 2012-007146 Application 12/191,473 3 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimura, Turner, and Paratore (US 6,294,997 B1, Sept. 25, 2001). Ans.11–12. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimura, Turner, Paratore, and Littlechild (US 7,259,654 B2, Aug. 21, 2007). Ans. 12. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimura, Turner, Paratore, and Friedrich (US 2007/0030126 A1, Feb. 8, 2007). Ans.13. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent—they all have the disputed feature of operating the RFID tag if the current time is within the operational window and not operating the RFID tag if the current time is outside the operational window (hereinafter “timed operations”). App. Br. 4–10. The Examiner made several § 103 rejections with the primary combination of Shimura and Turner. The Examiner relies upon Turner for the disputed feature. Ans. 6–7. Appellants’ arguments address Shimura and Turner in general, but, because Appellants do not explain why timed operations would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art, these arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s position to combine Shimura and Turner would effectively change Shimura’s principle of operation. App. Br. 11–13. Appellants’ citation to specific sections of Shimura and Turner amounts to challenging the references individually, which is not convincing of error in the Examiner’s position. That is, all of the features of the structure in the secondary reference need not be bodily Appeal 2012-007146 Application 12/191,473 4 incorporated into the primary reference, but consideration should be given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In that regard, the Supreme Court has indicated that: [It is error to] assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . 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 Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As such, Shimura would have been adjusted to accommodate teachings from Turner by one of ordinary skill in the art. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to incorporate the concepts of Turner into Shimura without incorporating every feature of Turner into Shimura. Regarding dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16, while Appellants raised additional arguments for patentability, we find that in the Answer the Examiner has rebutted with sufficient evidence each and every one of those arguments. Appeal 2012-007146 Application 12/191,473 5 DECISION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation