Ex Parte Mashhadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2017

14197307 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
14/197,307 03/05/2014 Afra Mashhadi 815634-US-NP 1530
46363 7590 11/29/2017
Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
TSVEY, GENNADIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2017 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):
docketing @ trbklaw .com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AFRA MASHHADI, VIJAY VENKATESWARAN,
and AID AN BORAN
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—7 and 10—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a security mechanism for short
range radio frequency (“RE”) communication, specifically so that an RF tag
may be configured such that the RF tag may only be detected by an
authorized RF reader. Spec. 4,11. 3—21. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below
with the disputed limitations in italics, are representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an antenna, a chip, and a backscatter spread modulator, wherein
the backscatter spread modulator is communicatively connected to the
antenna and to the chip;
wherein the antenna is configured to receive a signal having a
signal energy spread over a first range of frequencies,
wherein the backscatter spread modulator is configured to
spread the received signal to form a spread signal in which the signal
energy of the received signal is spread over a second range of
frequencies greater than the first range of frequencies, the second
range of frequencies configured to provide an average signal energy
per unit frequency for the spread signal that is less than a noise
threshold;
wherein the chip is configured to store data and to provide the
stored data to the backscatter spread modulator as a data signal having
a signal energy, wherein the backscatter spread modulator is
configured to spread the data signal to form a spread data signal in
which the signal energy of the data signal is spread over a range of
frequencies configured to provide an average signal energy per unit
frequency for the spread data signal that is less than the noise
threshold;
wherein the backscatter spread modulator is configured to
contribute to an impedance mismatch at the antenna that is a function
2
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
of the data signal from the chip and a spectrally spread signal
comprising the spread signal and the spread data signal.
15. An apparatus, comprising:
a signal source configured to transmit a first signal having a
first signal energy spread across a first range of frequencies; and
a de-spreader configured to:
receive, at the apparatus from a tag, a second signal
having a second signal energy spread, by the tag based on a
spreading sequence, across a second range of frequencies that is
greater than the first range of frequencies, the second range of
frequencies configured to provide an average signal energy per
unit frequency for the second signal that is less than a noise
threshold, the second signal comprising a spread version of the
first signal; and
de-spread the second signal, based on the spreading
sequence used by the tag, in a manner for concentrating the
second signal energy of the second signal within the first range
offrequencies to recover thereby a signal similar to the first
signal.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—7, 10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Wood (US 6,351,630 B2; issued
Feb. 26, 2002) and Kean (US 2008/0061980 Al; published Mar. 13, 2008).
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wood, Kean, and Lo et al. (US
2012/0050236 Al; published Mar. 1, 2012) (“Lo”).
3
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
Claims 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wood, Kean, and Ling (US 6,078,796;
issued June 20, 2000).
ANALYSIS
After considering each of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with the
Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and in the action from which this
appeal was taken. Ans. 19-34; Final Act. 3—19. Our discussion here will be
limited to the following points of emphasis.
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wood
and Kean teaches or suggests “wherein the backscatter spread modulator is
configured to contribute to an impedance mismatch at the antenna that is a
function of the data signal from the chip and a spectrally spread signal
comprising the spread signal and the spread data signal,” are recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 14?
The Examiner relies on column 8, lines 4—9 of Wood to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 7—8. Appellants argue “the cited
portion of Wood merely discloses a device that responds to an interrogator
where, if the device is in a backscatter mode, then it alternately reflects or
does not reflect a signal transmitted by the interrogator in order to send its
reply to the interrogator.” App. Br. 13. Appellants further argue
Wood only appears to include a single reference to the term
“impedance” and that this reference to “impedance” fails to
teach or suggest the feature of a backscatter spread modulator
that is configured to contribute to an impedance mismatch at
the antenna that is a function of the data signal from the chip
4
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
and a spectrally spread signal comprising the spread signal and
the spread data signal.
App. Br. 14.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings, which are based on detailed factual
findings supported by the disclosure in Wood. Final Act. 3—9; Ans. 19-31.
Wood teaches device 12, including transponder 16, transmits and receives
RF communications to and from interrogator 26. Wood, col. 4,11. 14—19;
col. 5,11. 8—9. Transponder 16 includes micro controller 34, which also
includes memory. Wood, col. 9,11. 7—8, Fig. 4. We agree with the
Examiner that “the information flow from the memory containing
identification of the device corresponds to ‘the data signal from the chip’.”
Ans. 23, citing Wood, col. 9,11. 13—17. Transponder 16 may also include a
spread spectrum processing circuit 40. Wood, col. 6,11. 44-45, Fig. 4. For
the reasons explained by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner that
“any signal transmitted by the device 12 is a spread spectrum signal which
directly corresponds to recited in the claim ‘a spectrally spread signal
comprising the spread signal and the spread data signal.’” Ans. 23—25.
Wood further states:
After the interrogator transmits the command, and is expecting
a response, the interrogator switches to a CW mode (continuous
wave mode). In the continuous wave mode, the interrogator
does not transmit any information. Instead, the interrogator just
transmits 2.44 GHz radiation. In other words, the signal
transmitted by the interrogator is not modulated. After the
device 12 receives the command from interrogator, the device
12 processes the command. If the device 12 is in a backscatter
mode it alternately reflects or does not reflect the signal from
the interrogator to send its reply.
5
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
Wood, col. 7,1. 63— col. 8,1. 9. The Examiner explains:
One of ordinary skill in the art does not generally need
explicit mentioning of the term “impedance” to understand that
described by Wood operation performs exactly that. As is well
known in the art of high/RF frequency communications, when
there is no impedance mismatch between components, the
energy passes from one component to another, while if there is
impedance mismatch between two components, the energy gets
reflected at the border between components. Going back to
Wood, when he describes the process of transmission of a reply
by opening or closing a switch between the two halves of the
dipole antenna, so that the antenna either reflects or does not
reflect a portion of the power transmitted by the interrogator,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately
understood that it is exactly manipulation with antenna
impedance by the transmitter that results in reflection or not
reflection of the power transmitted by the interrogator. In other
words, if the antenna impedance is matched, there is no
reflection of the power; conversely, if the antenna impedance is
mismatched, part of the power transmitted by the interrogator is
reflected back and this is how the device transmits its
information.
Ans. 27—28; see also Ans. 28—29. In the Reply Brief, Appellants
argue “the Examiner merely provides explanations of the result of
impedance matching and impedance mismatching at the antenna and
the manner in which impedance matching and impedance
mismatching at the antenna may be achieved, which do not establish
that the cited portions of Wood . . . teach or suggest [the disputed
limitation.]” Reply Br. 4.
Appellants fail to persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the
art would not understand the claimed impedance mismatch to encompass the
disclosure in Wood. Appellants’ argument essentially asserts that the claim
6
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
language is not disclosed verbatim in Wood. The doctrine of obviousness,
however, is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See Structural Rubber Products
Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather, the
obviousness inquiry is directed to whether the cited references would teach
or suggest the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention. KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we, therefore,
sustain those rejections. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent claims 2—7 and 10-13, which were
not separately argued.
Issue 2\ Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wood,
Kean, and Ling teaches or suggests a de-spreader configured to “de-spread
the second signal, based on the spreading sequence used by the tag, in a
manner for concentrating the second signal energy of the second signal
within the first range of frequencies to recover thereby a signal similar to the
first signal,” as recited in independent claim 15 and commensurately recited
in independent claim 20?
The Examiner relies on column 7, lines 6—13 of Wood to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 17. Appellants argue “the cited
portion of Wood merely discloses that the spread spectrum signals are
demodulated by a device or an interrogator based on respective versions of a
pseudo random carrier that are generated by the device or generated by the
interrogator, respectfully.” App. Br. 15—16; see also Reply Br. 7.
Therefore, according to Appellants, Wood “fails to teach or suggest a de-
7
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
spreader that is configured to de-spread a second signal, based on the
spreading sequence used by the tag.” App. Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 17, Ans. 31—34. Wood describes a
pseudo-noise or pseudo random number (PN) sequence or code that controls
the spreading waveform. Wood, col. 7,11. 2—3. Wood states:
The PN code is a binary sequence that appears random but can
be reproduced in a predetermined manner by the device 12.
More particularly, incoming spread spectrum signals are
demodulated by the device 12 or by the interrogator 26 through
cross correlation with a version of the pseudo random carrier
that is generated by the device 12 itself or the interrogatory 26
itself, respectfully. Cross correlation with the correct PN
sequence unspreads the spread spectrum signal and restores the
modulated message in the same narrow band as the original
data.
Wood, col. 7,11. 3—13. The Examiner explains “if the PN sequence is
incorrect, the signal will not be unspread. Therefore, the interrogator does
create its own version of PN sequence (‘spreading sequence’), but for the
method to work it must be the correct PN sequence, and the correct PN
sequence that can unspread the received signal may only be the same PN
sequence (‘spreading sequence’) as used by the device 12 (‘tag’).” Ans. 33.
We agree with the Examiner that “every working PN sequence (‘spreading
sequence’) generated by the interrogator must necessarily be ‘based on the
spreading sequence used by the tag’ otherwise it will simply not work.”
Ans. 34. Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claim limitation (Ans. 32—34) or other findings.
8
Appeal 2017-004025
Application 14/197,307
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we, therefore,
sustain those rejections. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent claims 16—19, which were not
separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 and 10—20.
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
9