Ex Parte Niedzwiecki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12539691 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/539,691 08/12/2009 Joshua D. Niedzwiecki
114420 7590 09/28/2016
Collision Communications, Inc.
20 Depot Street
Suite 2A
Peterborough, NH 03458
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.
Cll5/US 9834
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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.correspondence@sceneralabs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA D. NIEDZWIECKI and
PRABAHAN BASU1
Appeal2014-009333
Application 12/539,691
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-22. App. Br. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Collision Communications, Inc., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009333
Application 12/539,691
Invention
Appellants disclose the application of multiuser detection analysis to
an aggregated radio frequency (RF) response from a plurality of
simultaneously queried radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, so as to
distinguish the individual tag responses. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method for distinguishing responses received by an RFID
detector from a plurality of simultaneously queried RFID tags,
the method comprising:
querying the plurality of RFID tags;
receiving an aggregated RF response from the plurality
ofRFID tags;
characterizirn:.! the ai:n.!rei:.rnted RF resnonse accordin!:.! to a
'-' '-' '-' '-' _._ '-'
plurality of characteristics, the plurality of characteristics
including at least RF amplitude and RF phase;
according to the characterization of the aggregated RF
response, estimating at least one parameter, the at least one
parameter including a number of RFID tag responses included
in the aggregated RF response; and
applying multiuser detection including jointly
demodulating a plurality of colliding RFID tag responses
included in the aggregated RF response according to the at
least one estimated parameter so as to distinguish each of the
RFID tag responses included in the aggregated RF response.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Law et al. (US 6,859,801 Bl; issued Feb. 22,
2
Appeal2014-009333
Application 12/539,691
2005) and Kuffner et al. (US 7,023,817 B2; issued Apr. 4, 2006). Final Act.
2---6.
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Law, Kuffner, and Koo et al. (US 2004/0210411
Al; published Oct. 21, 2004). Final Act. 6-9.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Law, Kuffner, and Kent et al. (US 8,406,251 B2;
issued Mar. 26, 2013). Final Act. 9--12.
The Examiner rejects claims 8-12 and 19--22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Law, Kuffner, and Dupray (US
7,903,029 B2; issued Mar. 8, 2011). Final Act. 12-21.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Law and Kuffner
teaches or suggests "applying multiuser detection including jointly
demodulating a plurality of colliding F Fin tag responses included in the
aggregated RF response according to the at least one estimated parameter so
as to distinguish each of the RFID tag responses included in the aggregated
RF response," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Law's repeating of a
procedure for tag identification using different queries each time teaches or
suggests applying multiuser detection of the aggregated RF response
according to the at least one estimated parameter so as to distinguish each
of the RFID tag responses included in the aggregated RF response. Final
Act. 3 (citing Law col. 4, 11. 58---60, col. 5, 11. 57---60). The Examiner relies
on Kuffner' s simultaneous activation of a set of tags, which proceed with a
3
Appeal2014-009333
Application 12/539,691
multi-pass transmission algorithm using scrambled tag data as a basis for
channel selection, to teach or suggest the multiuser detection including
jointly demodulating a plurality of colliding RFID tag responses included in
the aggregated RF response. Final Act. 3 (citing Kuffner col. 3, 11. 26-29,
col. 5, 11. 38--47).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Law handles
collisions by "using a protocol that is constantly correcting and
retransmitting queries until all collisions are avoided." App. Br. 10.
Appellants further argue Kuffner "deals with collisions by either ignoring
the data from that channel or by using collision mitigation techniques that
regenerate a previously known one or two colliding signals and subtract out
the regenerated previously known signal, leaving the other signal alone so
that it can be read." Id. at 11.
Appellants' contentions are consistent with the cited portions of
Law-which relate to the repeat transmissions to RFID tags using different
query strings (see Law col. 4, 11. 58-60}-and with the cited portions of
Kuffner-which relate to a multi-pass transmission process in which
scrambled tag data 220 is used to select an appropriate channel (see Kuffner
col. 5, 11. 37--47), with collisions handled with techniques such as subtracting
known signals from RF data (id. at col. 29, 1. 58---col. 30, 1. 8).
In response, the Examiner finds that Kuffner's alternative modulation
types (e.g., Differential Quadrature Phase Shift Keying, Quadrature
Amplitude Modulation, Pulse Code Modulation, Pulse Amplitude
Modulation, Pulse Modulation, etc.) each "perform[] multiuser detection/
joint demodulation." Ans. 3 (citing Kuffner col. 20, 11. 20-26). However,
we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings fail to show that these
4
Appeal2014-009333
Application 12/539,691
alternative modulation types of Kuffner equate to "multiuser detection," as
claimed. Reply Br. 5. As Appellants note, Kuffner uses a multi-pass
algorithm without regard to the modulation type used to encode the
transmissions. Id. at 4 (citing Kuffner col. 19, 11. 41-67).
For these reasons, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
findings do not show the combination of Law and Kuffner teaches or
suggests "applying multiuser detection including jointly demodulating a
plurality of colliding RFID tag responses included in the aggregated RF
response according to the at least one estimated parameter so as to
distinguish each of the RFID tag responses included in the aggregated RF
response," as recited in claim 1.
We are a body of review, and thus our Decision is based on the
findings presented to us and the evidence on which those findings are based
(and the deficiencies in the evidence relied upon), rather than on the cited
references as a whole. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 13, and
14, which contain similar recitations and are similarly rejected. The
Examiner's findings do not show that Koo, Kent, or Dupray cure the noted
deficiency of Law and Kuffner. Therefore, we also cannot sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4--12 and 15-22.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22.
REVERSED
5