Ex Parte Jeppesen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13129174 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/129, 174 05/13/2011
20529 7590 09/21/2016
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Henrik Risbo Jeppesen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
31511U 6660
EXAMINER
SMALL, NAOMI J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRIK RISBO JEPPESEN
Appeal2015-006721
Application 13/129, 174
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-12, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal2015-006721
Application 13/129, 174
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a radio frequency identification
(RFID) device, which includes a wireless communication device (e.g., RFID
chip or strap) having at least a pair of contact points, and an antenna
structure having a sheet of electrically conductive material. (Spec. 1 :5-8.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A radio frequency identification RFID device (100, 200,
300, 400, 600) comprising:
- the RFID device configured to be attached to an object and to
be tuned at an assembly time to a material surrounding the device,
- a wireless communication device (101, 201, 301, 401 ), such
as an RFID chip or strap, having at least a pair of contact points (221,
521), and
- an antenna structure (102, 202, 302, 402, 602) adapted to
provide an omni-directional radiation pattern, having a sheet (103,
203, 303, 403, 503, 603) of electrically conductive material being
provided with an inner opening (104, 204, 304, 404, 604) so as to
provide a hole through the antenna structure (102, 202, 302, 402,
602), the inner opening being configured to facilitate a locking
mechanism engaging with the tag through the opening, the sheet (103,
203, 303, 403, 503, 603) further being provided with an elongated slot
(105, 205, 305, 405) with a first and a second side, the slot (105, 205,
305, 405) having an inner end (106, 206, 306, 406) at a periphery of
the opening (104, 204, 304, 404, 604) and an outer end (107, 207,
307, 407) at a periphery of the sheet (103, 203, 303, 403, 503, 603),
the slot (105, 205, 305, 405) being formed so as to provide a spacing
between the first side and the second side, and where the conductive
material is adapted to surround the inner opening in a radial
direction from the first side of the inner end and to the second side of
the inner end in an angular direction away from the slot, wherein
- the conductive material is electrically connected from the first
side of the slot (105, 205, 305, 405) to the second side of the slot (105,
205, 305, 405) via the contact points (221) and through the
communication device (101, 201, 301, 401) at a position along the
2
Appeal2015-006721
Application 13/129, 174
length of the slot between the inner end (106, 206, 306, 406) and the
outer end (107, 207, 307, 407), the position along the length of the
slot being determined so as to tune the RFID device to a pre-
determined resonance frequency, allowing the device to be adapted to
specific electronic parameters and tuned to different configurations
depending on the materials directly surrounding the device.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kline (US 2006/0244603 Al; Nov. 2, 2006), Jo
(US 2005/0024287 Al; Feb. 3, 2005), Jesme (US 2008/0258875 Al;
Oct. 23, 2008), Esselink (US 6,501,430 B 1; Dec. 31, 2002), and Forster '148
(US 7,292,148 B2; Nov. 6, 2007).
Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kline, Jo, Jesme, Esselink, Forster '148, and Forster '198
(US 2006/0043198 Al; Mar. 2, 2006).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kline, Jo, Jesme, Esselink, Forster' 148, and Forster '677 (US
2005/0093677 Al; May 5, 2005).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kline, Jo, J esme, Esselink, and Forster ' 148, and Cassata
(US 5,016,368; May 21, 1991).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) unpatentable over
Kline, Vega (US 6,411,213 Bl; June 25, 2002), Jo, Jesme, and Forster' 148.
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Kline, Jo, Jesme, Esselink, and Forster '148
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments (Reply Br. 10; see also
App. Br. 10) that the combination of Kline, Jo, Jesme, Esselink, and Forster
3
Appeal2015-006721
Application 13/129,174
'148 would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation "where the conductive material is adapted to surround the
inner opening in a radial direction."
The Examiner found that the electrically conductive metal web of
Kline corresponds to the limitation "a sheet ... of electrically conductive
material." (Ans. 2.) The Examiner further found that antenna A of Kline
having a T-shaped slot, as illustrated in Figure 2 of Kline, corresponds to the
limitation "where the conductive material is adapted to surround the inner
opening in a radial direction." (Id. at 3.) We do not agree.
Independent claim 1 recites "where the conductive material is adapted
to surround the inner opening in a radial direction from the first side of the
inner end" (emphasis added). One relevant plain meaning of "radial" is
"relating to, placed like, or moving along a radius." MERRIMAN-WEBSTER'S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 962 (10th ed. 1999). Similarly, "radius" is
defined as "a straight line from the center of a circle or sphere to any point
on the outer edge." (Id. at 964.) This definition of "radial" is consistent
with Appellant's Figure 1, a top view of a circular radio frequency
identification (RFID) device 100 (Spec. 6:15-16), reproduced below:
Fig. 1
4
Jtl{,--100
~ ,,102
v
Appeal2015-006721
Application 13/129,174
As illustrated in Appellant's Figure 1, sheet 103 includes inner opening 104
as a hole with slot 105 having inner end 106, such that sheet 103 extends
radially from inner opening 104. (Spec. 6:32-7:2.) Similarly, Appellant's
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a top view of circular RFID devices 300 and 400,
respectively. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, we interpret "radially" as moving along a
radius, a straight line from the center of a circle to any point on the outer
edge.
Kline relates to "methods of making webs including antenna webs and
RFID transponder webs and to RFID antenna webs." (i-f 3.) Figure 2 of
Kline, which illustrates a top plan view of a transponder web (i-f 20), is
reproduced below:
T
FIG.2
Kline explains that "[e]ach transponder Tis comprised of an antenna A and
a strap Shaving an RFID chip C" and that "[t]he antennas A are generally
bow-tie shaped, but they can have other shapes." (i-f 47.) Kline further
5
Appeal2015-006721
Application 13/129, 174
explains that "antenna A has a slot 26 shown to have a generally T-shaped
configuration" (id.) and that such antenna A is formed of a flexible
electrically conductive material (e.g., aluminum) (i-f 53).
Although the Examiner cited to Figure 2 of Kline (Ans. 3), which
illustrates a "bow-tie shaped" antenna A (or can "have other shapes") with
T-shaped slot 26, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence or
reasoning to support a finding that Kline teaches the limitation "where the
conductive material is adapted to surround the inner opening in a radial
direction." In particular, the Examiner has not articulated any reasoning
with some rational underpinning as why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified the shape of antenna A to be circular, including a
circular opening, and why one of ordinary would have selected the location
of the T-shaped slot 26 on a circular antenna A such that "the conductive
material is adapted to surround the inner opening in a radial direction." On
this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Kline teaches the
limitation "where the conductive material is adapted to surround the inner
opening in a radial direction." Moreover, the Examiner's application of Jo,
J esme, Esselink, and Forster ' 148 does not cure the above noted deficiencies
of Kline.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that "[i]n
Kline, the 'inner opening' and 'slot' are depicted by reference numerals 27
and 28, which in combination form a T-shaped cutout depicted by reference
numeral 26" and "[t]he T-shaped cutout of Kline ... does not disclose the
presently claimed feature of a conductive material adapted to surround the
inner opening in a radial direction." (Reply Br. 10 (emphases omitted); see
also App. Br. 10.)
6
Appeal2015-006721
Application 13/129, 174
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 11 depend from
independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9,
and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect
to independent claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Kline, Jo, Jesme, Esselink, Forster '148, and Forster '198
Claims 4 and 8 depend from independent claim 1. Forster' 198 was
cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 4 and 8.
(Ans. 6-8.) However, the Examiner's application of Forster' 198 does not
cure the above noted deficiencies of Kline.
§ 103 Rejection-Kline, Jo, Jesme, Esselink, and Forster '148, and
Forster '677
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1. Forster '677 was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 7. (Ans. 8-9.)
However, the Examiner's application of Forster '677 does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Kline.
§ 103 Rejection-Kline, Jo, Jesme, Esselink, Forster '148, and Cassata
Claim 10 depends from independent claim 1. Cassata was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 10. (Ans. 9-10.)
However, the Examiner's application of Forster' 198 does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Kline.
7
Appeal2015-006721
Application 13/129, 174
§ 103 Rejection-Kline, Vega, Jo, Jesme, and Forster '148
Independent claim 12 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. Vega was cited by the Examiner for
teaching the additional features of claim 12. (Ans. 10-13.) However, the
Examiner's application of Vega does not cure the above noted deficiencies
of Kline.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
8