Ex Parte Lickfelt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201612851441 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/851,441 08/05/2010 Brian K. Lickfelt 88954 7590 02/26/2016 Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP 23755 Lorain Road, Suite 200 North Olmsted, OH 44070 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. HRA-19671.07 1715 EXAMINER KHAN,OMERS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 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): overberger@rankinhill.com shea@rankinhill.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN K. LICKFELT and NICKY STROCK Appeal2014-005043 Application 12/851,441 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN F. HORVATH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 Contrary to the Examiner assessment that there is "an improper submission of an Appeal Brief' (Answer 14), we agree with Appellants that the appeal before us is proper (Reply Br. 5). Appeal2014-005043 Application 12/851,441 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-16. Final Act. 1, July 15, 2013. Subsequent to the Final Action, Appellants filed an amendment of independent claims 1 and 9 to incorporate subject matter from claims 3 and 12 respectively. Claims 3 and 12 (along with claim 11) were also cancelled. Pages 2-5 of the Amendment filed September 16, 2013. The Examiner granted entry of the after final amendments. Page 2 of the Advisory Action mailed September 26, 2013. Thus, the claims on appeal are independent claims 1 and 9 (as amended after final action), and dependent claims 2, 4--8, 10, and 13-16. App. Br. 5. The sole ground of rejection presented for review is the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 9 (as amended after final) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US 2009/0289783 Al, filed October 1, 2008), Lin et al (US 2009/0179747 Al, filed May 17, 2007), and Uysal et al (US 2010/0271187 Al, filed April 22, 2010). 2 The rejections of claims 2, 4--8, 10, and 13-16 are not presented for review. Therefore, the rejections of claims 2, 4--8, 10, and 13-16 tum on our decision as to the underlying § 103 rejection of claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 2 Although pages 2-13 of the Answer repeat, unmodified, the rejections of the Final Action, both Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Examiner's responses in the Answer recognize that the actual rejection before us corresponds to the Final rejection of now cancelled claims 3 and 12. 2 Appeal2014-005043 Application 12/851,441 Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method for localizing tire sensors on a vehicle, the method compnsmg: determining a wake up field power; transmitting an LF wake up field having the wake up field power from an LF antenna on the vehicle; receiving an identification signal from each tire sensor awakened by the transmitted LF wake up field; determining whether a desired number of tire sensors have woken up in response to the transmitted LF wake up field based on the received identification signals, wherein the desired number of tire sensors is greater than one; when the desired number of tire sensors have woken up, recording the identification signals received from the awakened tire sensors and the respective antenna that awoke the respective tire sensors; determining whether a desired number of antennas have transmitted a respective LF wake up field; when the desired number of antennas have transmitted a respective LF wake up field, comparing the received identification signals and determining locations for the tire sensors based on which respective antenna woke up which respective tire sensor and whether the received identification signals match other received identification signals; wherein when more than the desired number of tire sensors wake up, decreasing the wake up field power, transmitting another wake up field having a decreased wake up field power, receiving the identification signals from each tire sensor awakened by the another wake up field and determining whether the desired number of tire sensors have woken up in response to the transmitted another wake up field based on the received identification signals. 3 Appeal2014-005043 Application 12/851,441 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Lin, and Uysal. 3 Appellants ' Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Kim never discusses any "determination" that a desired number have [sic] tire sensors have awakened. . . . Kim never determines whether a desired number of tire sensors have woken up. App. Br. 10. Lin also fails to discuss any "determination" that a desired number have [sic] tire sensors have awakened. Lin, similar to Kim, teaches recognizing tire sensor location based on a repeated ID signal. Lin teaches a first LF signal only sufficient in strength to awaken the right rear tire sensor and a second LF signal with sufficient signal strength that the left rear tire sensor is awakened. Lin discusses an increase in the signal strength so that the left rear tire sensor is awakened, and Lin acknowledges that the right rear tire sensor will also awaken. Nevertheless, there is no determination whether a desired number of tire sensors have woken up. App. Br. 11. The Examiner relies on Uysal for teaching decreasing the power of the field to read sensors close to a receiver. As such, there is no proper combination of Kim, Lin, and Uysal that teaches "determining whether a desired number of tire sensors have woken up." App. Br. 11. 3 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 9. Except for our ultimate decision, claim 9 is not discussed further herein. 4 Appeal2014-005043 Application 12/851,441 2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [Claim 1] also recite [ s] "when more than the desired number of tire sensors wake up, decreasing the wake up field power, [and] transmitting another wake up field having a decreased wake up field power." Kim provides no discussion as to what would occur if any of the antennas woke up three tire sensors. Lin also fails to provide any such discussion. App. Br. 11. Claims 1 and 9 recite that when more than the desired number of tire sensors wakes up, that the wake up field power is decreased and another wake up field is transmitted. Neither Kim nor Lin teach or suggest decreasing the wake up field power. App. Br. 11-12. Uysal is not related to the automotive vehicle arts, however, the Examiner modifies the secondary reference Lin and then combines Lin with the primary reference Kim to reject claims 1 and 9 as having been obvious. Such a substantial redesign of the system disclosed in Kim seems to be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. App. Br. 12, emphasis added. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over the combination of Kim, Lin, and Uysal? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We 5 Appeal2014-005043 Application 12/851,441 disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. As to Appellants' above contention 1, we disagree. The Examiner correctly points out that the limitations moved from claim 3 (now cancelled) into claim 1 (as amended) are not taught by Kim and Lin, but rather "Uysal was used to teach the limitations in question." Answer 14. We agree with the Examiner that Uysal teaches varying a radio frequency reading range by adjusting a transmission power level (up and down) until a desired number of responses are received. See Uysal i-fl20, i-fl26, and i-fl28. As to Appellants' above contention 2, we disagree. Appellants' argument that the combination of the references is "beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art" is premised on arguing "Uysal is not related to the automotive arts." Appellants' argument is essentially that Uysal and (Kim-Lin) are not analogous art. We disagree. Kim (directed to using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) sensors attached on the respective tires (Background)) is analogous art to Lin (directed to identifying tire location by receiving radio frequency identification signals (Abst.)), and Uysal (directed to interrogating a tagged object using radio frequency identification (RFID) (Abst.)) is also analogous art to Kim. Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: ( 1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Jn re Wood, 599F.2d1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979) and Jn re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). At a 6 Appeal2014-005043 Application 12/851,441 minimum, the references before us meet the requirement of the second test, as the references are pertinent to Appellants' particular problem of localizing sensors. See Spec. i-fi-1 5-6. Further, as to above contention 2, Appellants' argument attempts to over-constrain the pertinence of Uysal. Appellants' argument highlights the different fields of the references (automotive versus non-automotive) without focusing on the problem to be solved, i.e. determining the proper transmission power level for multi-object radio frequency identification (RFID). "A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, (Fed. Cir. 1992). We agree with the Examiner that Uysal is reasonably pertinent because it uses automatic transmission power level adjustment in a system directed to interrogating one or more tagged objects using radio frequency identification (RFID). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 13-16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 13-16 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 13-16 are affirmed. 7 Appeal2014-005043 Application 12/851,441 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation