Ex Parte Hagl

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13468115 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

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.
13/468,115 05/10/2012 Andreas Hagl TI-70861 9190
23494 7590 11/17/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
JIANG, YONG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS HAGL
Appeal 2017-006365
Application 13/468,1151
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—13, which constitute all of the claims pending
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Deutschland GMBH. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006365
Application 13/468,115
INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a passive entry system to
prevent unauthorized access to a secured location. Spec. 11.
Claim 1 reads as follows, with the disputed limitation shown in italics:
1. A method for operating a passive entry system, the method
comprising:
receiving, using a remote transponder, an interrogation
signal carrying a wakeup pattern;
generating, using the remote transponder, channel signals
of a plurality of channels in response to the received
interrogation signal;
detecting whether each of the channel signals carries a
valid wakeup pattern or an invalid wakeup pattern;
determining a received signal strength indicator (RSSI)
of the received interrogation signal based only on the channel
signal carrying the valid wakeup pattern while ignoring the
channel signal carrying the invalid wakeup pattern; and
keeping a transmitter of the remote transponder in a
current-saving mode when the determined RSSI is below a
predetermined threshold.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Koons et al. (US 2011/0090063 Al;
published April 21, 2011) (“Koons”), Hagl et al. (US 2006/0220786 Al;
published Oct. 5, 2006) (“Hagl”) and Morelli et al. (US 6,236,674 Bl; issued
May 22, 2001) (“Morelli”). Final Act. 3.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Koons, Hagl, Morelli, and Meier (US 6,489,886 B2;
issued Dec. 3, 2002). Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal 2017-006365
Application 13/468,115
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Koons, Hagl, Morelli, and Reisman et al. (US
2005/0012656 Al; published Jan. 20, 2005). Final Act. 6.
Claims 7—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Meier, Whitehead (US 6,035,201; issued March 7,
2000), Koons, and Morelli. Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner found Koons teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except “generating . . . channel signals
of a plurality of channels in response to the received interrogation signal,”
for which the Examiner relied on Hagl, and “keeping a transmitter of the
remote transponder in a current-saving mode when the determined RSSI is
below a predetermined threshold,” for which the Examiner relied on Morelli.
Final Act. 3—5.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Morelli fails to teach
the limitation “keeping a transmitter of the remote transponder in a current­
saving mode,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8. Appellant argues the cited
section of Morelli teaches that “the back-end circuitry of the receiver system
3
Appeal 2017-006365
Application 13/468,115
is disabled” when the RSSI is below a certain threshold, but a transmitter is
typically found in front-end circuitry. App. Br. 8. Thus, Appellant argues
that the disabling of the “back-end circuitry” does not necessarily result in
the disabling of the transmitter. Id. Appellant points out that “Morelli does
not require the front-end transmitter to be either enabled or disabled when
the ‘back-end circuitry’ is being disabled.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because they are
based on limitations not recited in the claim. The plain language of claim 1
does not require back-end or front-end circuitry locations, and Appellant has
not persuaded us the claim should be interpreted to require them.
Appellant’s arguments are, therefore, not commensurate with the scope of
claim 1 and do not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Appellant further argues Morelli does not teach the recited limitation
“current-saving mode.” App. Br. 9.
We disagree. The Examiner found Morelli teaches a “sleep mode” to
limit power consumption by the transmitter. Ans. 3. Appellant’s argument
in the Reply Brief—that there are many ways to limit the power
consumption of a device, and “[a]s such, neither a sleep mode nor a current­
saving mode provides the only way to achieve power saving”—is
unpersuasive. See Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellant has not persuaded
us that the Examiner’s interpretation of the recited “current-saving mode” as
broad enough to encompass the “sleep mode” of Morelli is overly broad,
4
Appeal 2017-006365
Application 13/468,115
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.2 Final Act. 4. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation of “current-saving
mode.”
Appellant further argues the combination proposed by the Examiner
would render Koons unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of preventing
communications with the transponder because Koons would not respond to
the wakeup signal when the count value is below the threshold value. App.
Br. 9—10. Appellant also argues the Examiner “has not proffered a scheme
in which the current-saving mode of Morelli could be adapted to the
histogram threshold value of Koons.'” Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. It is well settled that “a
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for
obviousness whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. Id.
Here, the Examiner explained that the teachings of Morelli would help
with reducing power consumption in Koons when the reader signal is too
weak, making replies to the reader from a transponder a waste of power.
2 We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
5
Appeal 2017-006365
Application 13/468,115
Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. The Examiner also explained that the Hagl and Koons
systems are compatible, because an artisan of ordinary skill would have been
able to modify the antenna structure of Koons with the teachings of Hagl to
improve signal reception. Ans. 4. The Examiner further found Koon’s
teachings to prevent over-polling using a histogram count value are not
incompatible with Morelli’s teaching of only responding to reader signals
with the proper RSSI to save battery power. Id. Thus, we find the Examiner
provided sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Koons, Hagl, and Morelli teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claim 1, or in reaching an ultimate conclusion of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative independent claim 1. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of grouped independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2—6, 12,
and 13, for which Appellant makes no separate, substantive arguments for
patentability. See App. Br. 12—15; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 7, Appellant repeats the arguments for
claim 1 and additionally argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Koons with Meier because
Meier’s channel selection process is incompatible with Koons’ operation.
App. Br. 13. In particular, Appellant argues Meier teaches a security system
in which the signal strength determination takes place before detecting the
validity of a wakeup pattern of an interrogation signal, whereas Koons’
6
Appeal 2017-006365
Application 13/468,115
signal strength determination takes place after detecting the validity of a
wakeup pattern of an interrogation signal. Id.
The Examiner cited the teachings of Koons to show it was known in
the art to determine signal strength after detecting the validity of a wakeup
pattern. Ans. 5. Although Appellant argues determining signal strength
be/ore-wQYSus-a/ier “requires different structure that serves different
purposes,” Appellant does not identify the different structure and purposes.
See Reply Br. 10. Design choices that do not “result in a difference in
function or give unexpected results ... are no more than obvious variations
consistent with the principles known in the art.” In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309,
314 (CCPA 1965). Ans. 5. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
determining signal strength after detecting the validity of a wakeup pattern is
an alternative design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See Ans. 5.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Meier, Whitehead, Koons, and Morelli teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 7, or in reaching an ultimate
conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 7, as well as dependent claims 8—10, for which Appellant
presents no additional, substantive arguments. See App. Br. 14.
7
Appeal 2017-006365
Application 13/468,115
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8