Ex Parte Kruest et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 1, 2018

12982398 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/982,398 12/30/2010 James Robert Kruest
27189 7590 05/03/2018
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
525 B STREET
SUITE 2200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
126330-015DV2 8290
EXAMINER
ADNAN, MUHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2018 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):
docketing@procopio.com
PTONotifications@procopio.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES ROBERT KRUEST and GARY BANN
Appeal2017-011165
Application 12/982,398 1
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final
rejection of claims 2, 4---6, 9, 10, and 14--21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Neology, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011165
Application 12/982,398
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (US 2005/0077353 Al,
published Apr. 14, 2005) ("Oishi") and Hall et al. (US 2006/0158311 Al,
published July 20, 2006) ("Hall").
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oishi, Hall, and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oishi, Hall, and Neuwirth (US 2005/0258956 Al,
published Nov. 24, 2005).
Claims 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oishi, Hall, and Kato (JP 2006-140611, published June 1,
2006).
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to "Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) systems," and more particularly to "systems and
methods for reading and writing information from multiple RFID enabled
documents." Spec. i-f 2. Independent claim 2 is directed to a method. App.
Br. 10.
Claim 2 recites (emphasis added):
2. A method for interrogating one or more stationary RFID
tags in a static interrogation environment, the method
compnsmg:
providing a stationary antenna for transmitting and
receiving RF signals to and from the one or more stationary
RFID tags;
2
Appeal 2017-011165
Application 12/982,398
generating, by the stationary antenna, an electromagnetic
interrogation field of a predetermined frequency in the
interrogation environment; and
moving a first conductor positioned inside the
electromagnetic interrogation field while both the stationary
antenna and the one or more stationary RFID tags are
stationary, wherein moving the first conductor varies a position
of at least one low energy region present within the
electromagnetic interrogation field.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' arguments is whether
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Oishi and Hall teaches
the claimed "moving a first conductor positioned inside the electromagnetic
interrogation field while both the stationary antenna and the one or more
stationary RFID tags are stationary." App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3.
In particular, Appellants contend Oishi' s reflector "is stationary and
fixed in position with respect to the RF tag" and does not teach a "movable
conductor" or the claimed "moving the conductor ... while both the
stationary antenna and the one or more stationary RFID tags are stationary."
App. Br. 6. Appellants contend Oishi's reflector "provides data for various
locations in order to aid in determining an optimal position to fix the
reflector location," but does not teach moving the reflector, as claimed.
Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further argue Hall requires "either the antenna or
the tag bearing object must move relative to each other," and does not teach
3
Appeal 2017-011165
Application 12/982,398
moving the conductor while "both the stationary antenna and the one or
more stationary RFID tags are stationary." App. Br. 6-7.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds Oishi
teaches a reflector that can be moved to different locations. Ans. 7. The
Examiner further finds Hall's moving an RF reader antenna and RF tags
with respect to each other teaches the claimed moving a conductor while the
antenna and RFID tags are stationary. Id.
We disagree with the Examiner's findings. Oishi teaches taking
measurements with the "distant D 1 between the RF tag 101 and the reflector
102 in the RF tag module 104 is set to four values 8, 10, 15, and 18 mm, and
corresponding measurements of the data reading were made," in order to
determine "that the distance between them be preferably set to less than 15
mm." Oishi i-f 66. Hall teaches "minimizing coupling nulls between an
electromagnetic field" with "each tag may be translated and/or rotated
relative to the field or the field may be translated and/or rotated relative to
the tags." Hall i-f 7. In other words, Oishi teaches taking measurements for
different distances between the RF tag and the reflector, and fixing the
distance between the RF tag and reflector for optimal reading, and Hall
teaches moving the field and RF tags relative to one another. However, the
disclosures of Oishi and Hall do not teach the claimed "moving a first
conductor positioned inside the electromagnetic interrogation field while
both the stationary antenna and the one or more stationary RFID tags are
stationary." The Examiner has not explained how Oishi's fixing the
distance between the RF tag and the reflector, combined with Hall's moving
the field and RF tag in relation to one another, teaches the claimed moving
the conductor while the antenna and RF tags are stationary.
4
Appeal 2017-011165
Application 12/982,398
The Examiner has not made a finding that anything else in Oishi or
Hall teaches the disputed limitation, nor has the Examiner made findings
that additional references provide teachings that make up for the deficiency
in the rejection of claim 2. Thus, we are constrained by the record before us
to reverse the Examiner's rejections of independent claim 2 and dependent
claims 4--6, 9, 10, and 14--21.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 2, 4--6, 9, 10, and 14--21 are reversed.
REVERSED
5