Ex Parte Hirsch et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 201512514641 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte OLAF HIRSCH, JAVIER DEL PRADO, and DOMINIQUE EVERAERE ____________________ Appeal 2012-012418 Application 12/514,641 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-012418 Application 12/514,641 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claims 1 and 9 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method for activating a communication device in a near field communication (NFC) environment, the method comprising: generating, with a NFC tag reader, a magnetic field; detecting, with a detection circuit, said generated magnetic field automatically; signaling the detection of the generated magnetic field to said communication device; and switching the communication device automatically to an appropriate pairing mode with the NFC tag reader according to the detected magnetic field. 9. A system for detecting a magnetic field generated by a near field communication (NFC) tag reader in a NFC environment, the system comprising: a resonant circuit that generates an alternating voltage in said detected magnetic field generated by said NFC tag reader; a diode that rectifies the generated alternating voltage; and a capacitor that averages the rectified voltage to produce an output voltage that switches a communication device automatically to an appropriate pairing mode with the NFC tag reader according to the detected magnetic field. Appeal 2012-012418 Application 12/514,641 3 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hall (US 2004/0203352 A1, pub. Oct. 14, 2004). Final Act. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 2–4, 6, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall and Waters (US 6,942,158 B2, issued Sept. 13, 2005). Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall, Waters, and Kofler (US 2005/0242790 A1, pub. Nov. 3, 2005). Final Act. 5–6.1 Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because “Hall’s scanning mode is not the same as the pairing mode because Hall’s scanning mode occurs prior to ‘wireless connection establishment.’” App. Br. 5 (emphasis ours). Appellants present their supporting argument at pages 5 and 6 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 and 3 of the Reply Brief. 2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “the Office Action presents a conclusory statement, alleging that one could ‘modify the system of Hall to design the RFID tag as taught by Waters’ without presenting any articulated reasoning regarding the recited pairing mode.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis ours). Appellants present their supporting argument at page 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 3 and 4 of the Reply Brief. 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–8 and 10. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2012-012418 Application 12/514,641 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. Regarding Appellants’ first contention, the Examiner responds that the claims do not preclude the “prior” feature. Ans. 3–4. As to Appellants’ second contention, the Examiner responds “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to design a tag including a reciter and resonant circuit as taught by Waters and use the tag in the system of Hall to switch the communication device.” Ans. 4–5. The Examiner has provided sufficient articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the proffered combination. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response and concur with the Examiner’s findings. 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see particularly the Examiner’s remarks at pages 3–5 of the Answer). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hall. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2–4, 6, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall and Waters. Appeal 2012-012418 Application 12/514,641 5 The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall, Waters, and Kofler. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11 is affirmed. 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