Ex Parte Panchalan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

12814108 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/814,108
28875 7590
Zilka-Kotab, PC
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
FILING DATE
06/11/2010
09/29/2016
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Prasad Panchalan
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.
IFLXP049 8504
EXAMINER
WILSON, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
chrisc@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRASAD PAN CHALAN
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) devices using a common master clock to mitigate
noise" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) reader circuit,
the reader circuit comprising:
a master clock for providing a timing signal on a timing
signal output thereof;
a switching regulator synchronized with the timing signal
for providing power to the RFID reader circuit when the RFID
reader circuit transmits and/or receives an RF signal;
a Radio Frequency (RF) source in a transmitting path, the
RF source being coupled to the timing signal output; and
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) in a receiving path,
the ADC being coupled to the timing signal output.
C. PRIOR ART REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Claims 1--4, 7, 12, 13, 22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Vishakhadatta (US 7,805, 170
B2; iss. Sept. 28, 2010); Cherpantier et al. (US 2009/0106577 Al; pub.
Apr. 23, 2009); and Frederick et al. (US 7,772,997; iss. Aug. 10, 2010).
Claim 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the teachings of Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, Frederick, and Cummins et al.
(US 6,278,864 Al; iss. Aug. 21, 2001).
Claim 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the teachings of Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, Frederick, and Diorio et al. (US
7 ,304,579 B2; iss. Dec. 4, 2007).
Claims 8-11, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, Frederick,
and Garber et al. (US 7 ,988,055 B2; iss. Aug. 2, 2011 ).
2
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
Claims 14--16, 19-21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the teachings of Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, Frederick,
and Balasubramanian (US 2009/0078763 Al; pub. Mar. 26, 2009).
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, Frederick,
Balasubramanian, and Garber. 1
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding:
1) the combination of Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, and Frederick
teaches or suggests a "switching regulator synchronized with the timing
signal for providing power to the RFID reader circuit when the RFID reader
circuit transmits and/or receives an RF signal" (claim 1, emphases added).
2) the combination of Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, Frederick, and
Balasubramanian teaches or suggests "portions of the transmitting path ...
are on a different circuit board than portions of the receiving path ... " (claim
16, emphases added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Vis hakhadatta
1. Vishakhadatta discloses a switching power regulator and a non-
switching power regulator that provide regulated power to the digital logic
1 The rejection of claims 1-15, and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn.
3
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
(Abst.), wherein the digital logic and switching regulator may be deactivated
during RF activity (col. 1, 11. 60-63).
2. After the RF event has concluded or with some overlap, the switching
regulator may be activated (col. 3, 11. 13-16).
3. However, it is advantageous to use the switching regulator to supply
current to the digital logic as much as possible to prolong the life of the
battery, as a witching regulator is far more efficient than a linear regulator
(col. 5, 11. 3-13).
4. The digital circuitry and the switching regulator/power supply are
inactivated before or during the RF time slot (col. 12, 11. 51-53).
Balasubramani an
5. Balasubramanian discloses wherein Figure 2 is reproduced below:
iRj.1.NSIJ.ff
~ ~-: §
1-l~tJ~
l-'\A1t.fl~
C.iM..vrr
: .
Figure 2 shows a transmit antenna 5 that transmits power data to the
card 10 and receive antenna 4 that receives the signal from the card 10 and
gives it to the Reader IC 8 through the matching filter circuit 9 ([0033]).
IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
As to claim 1, Appellant contends "Vishakhadatta teaches that the
switching regulator is deactivated during RF activity" and thus, one of
4
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
ordinary skill in the art "would thus understand the scope of the systems
thereof to exclude embodiments where the switching regulator introduces
interference, i.e. where the switching regulator is active during RF activity"
(App. Br. 14). Although Appellant acknowledges Vishakhadatta "does state
the 'switching regulator may be deactivated during RF activity ... '" (App.
Br. 14--15), Appellant contends "Vishakhadatta expressly teaches
deactivating the switching power regulator during RF activity" (App.
Br. 15). Appellant then contends that the skilled artisan "would not be
reasonably motivated to modify Vishakhadatta" wherein the proposed
modification of Vishakhadatta "would impermissibly change Vishakhdatta' s
principle of low-interference RF operation" (App. Br. 16).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and are unpersuaded of error with the Examiner's conclusion that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious over the combined
teachings.
Vishakhadatta discloses a switching power regulator that provides
regulated power to the digital logic along with a non-switching power
regulator, wherein the switching regulator "may" be deactivated during RF
activity (FF 1) and then after the RF event has concluded or with some
overlap, the switching regulator "may" be activated (FF 2). In
Vishakhadatta, the digital circuitry and the switching regulator/power supply
may be inactivated before or during the RF time slot (FF 4).
In particular, Vishakhadatta discloses a switching regulator for
providing power (which includes providing power both when the RFID
5
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
reader circuit transmits/receives an RF signal as well as when the RFID
reader does not transmit an RF signal), wherein the switching may be (i.e., is
not required to be) deactivated during the RF event (FF 1, 2, 4). That is,
Vishakhadatta discloses that the switching regulator provides power to the
RFID reader circuit both when transmitting/receiving (since the switching is
not required to be deactivated during this time) as well as when not
transmitting/receiving the RF signal, although the preference is for when it is
not transmitting/receiving the RF signal (id.). In fact, Vishakhadatta
discloses that it is advantageous to use the switching regulator to supply
current as much as possible to prolong the life of the battery, as a switching
regulator is far more efficient than a linear regulator (FF 3).
Although we agree with Appellant that "Vishakhadatta teaches that
the switching regulator is deactivated during RF activity" as a preference,
we disagree with the Appellant's contention that one of ordinary skill in the
art "would thus understand the scope of the systems thereof to exclude
embodiments where the switching regulator introduces interference, i.e.
where the switching regulator is active during RF activity" (App. Br. 14,
emphasis added). As Appellant acknowledges, Vishakhadatta merely states
that "the 'switching regulator may be deactivated during RF activity ... "'
(App. Br. 14--15), but contrary to Appellant's contention, Vishakhadatta
does not disclose any teaching of excluding activation during RF activity.
We agree with the Examiner's finding Vishakhadatta teaches both
situations: "where the switching regulator is deactivated during RF activity"
and "where the switching regulator is activated during RF activity" (Ans. 2).
As the Examiner explains, "[t]he explicit recitation of 'may' makes it clear
that Vishakhadatta envisions at least some embodiments wherein the digital
6
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
logic and switching regulator are active during RF activity" (Final Act. 5).
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Vishakhadatta for
disclosing or at least suggesting a "switching regulator synchronized with
the timing signal for providing power" to the RFID reader circuit, wherein
the switching regulator provides power "when the RFID reader circuit
transmits and/or receives an RF signal" (as well as when the RFID reader
circuit does not transmit/receiver an RF signal), as required by claim 1.
Although Appellant contends that the skilled artisan "would not be
reasonably motivated to modify Vishakhadatta" which "would
impermissibly change Vishakhadatta's principle of low-interference RF
operation" (App. Br. 16), the Examiner is not relying on any such
modification of Vishakhadatta (Ans. 4). Rather, as the Examiner points out,
Vishakhadatta "clearly teaches two situations, the first situation being where
the switching regulator is deactivated during RF activity, and the second
situation being whether the switching regulator is activated during the RF
activity" (id.).
On this record, we find no error with the Examiner's finding the
combination of Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, and Frederick teaches or
suggests the contested limitations recited in claim 1. Appellant does not
provide substantive arguments for the dependent claims depending from
claim 1 (App. Br. 18-20). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejections of
1) claims 2--4, 7, 12, and 13 over Vishakhadatta, and Frederick; 2) claim 5
over Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, and Frederick, in further view of
Cummins; 3) claim 6 over Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, and Frederick, in
further view of Diorio; 4) claims 8-11 over Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, and
Frederick, in further view of Garber; and 5) claims 14 and 15 over
7
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, and Frederick, in further view of
Balasubramanian.
Claim 16
Appellant contends "the art of record neither teaches nor suggests
placing portions of the transmitting path including an RF modulator on a
different circuit board than portions of the receiving path including the
ADC" as required by claim 16 (App. Br. 21, emphasis omitted). Although
Appellant acknowledges Balasubramanian's Fig. 4 teaches "the transmit and
receive antennae may be placed on separate circuit boards, and even further
that each of those separate boards may also be separated from the circuit
board on which the smart card is formed," Appellant contends
"Balasubramanian does not suggest placing any other component on
different circuit boards, much less specifically the RF modulator and/or
ADC" (App. Br. 22-23).
However, as the Examiner points out, claim 16 "does not specifically
require that the RF modulator and the ADC being on a different circuit board
as Appellant contends" (Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner that claim 16
merely requires "the transmitting path includes an RF modulator" and "the
receiving path includes an ADC," wherein ''portions of the transmitting path
and portions of the receiving path are on different circuit boards" (id.,
emphasis added). Thus, giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation, we conclude claim 16 merely requires that certain portions of
a receiving path be on a different board than certain portions of a
transmitting path.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Balasubramanian "clearly
teaches that portions of the transmitting antenna and portions of the
8
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
receiving antenna can be on different boards" (id.). In particular,
Balasubramanian discloses a transmitting path from transmit antenna 5 to
the card 10 and a receiving path through which the receive antenna 4
receives the signal from the card 10 and gives it to the Reader IC 8 through
the matching filter circuit 9, wherein the various antennae and card may be
on separate boards (FF 5). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's
reliance on Balasubramanian for teaching or at least suggesting "portions of
the transmitting path ... are on a different circuit board than portions of the
receiving path ... ,"as required by claim 16.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo the claims require that the RF
modulator and the ADC be on different boards, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner erred in finding that, in Fig. 4 of Balasubramanian, "there is clear
teaching of separating not only the antenna but also other components such
as the reader and the smart card" (Final Act. 10). We agree that the
ordinarily skilled artisan would "understand that separation of any
components would be an obvious modification" (id.).
We are guided by the Supreme Court's viewing the modification of
prior art teachings by a practitioner in the art KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007):
(Id.)
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives
and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.
The Supreme Court further guides: an improved product in the art is
obvious if that "product [is] not [one] of innovation but of ordinary skill and
common sense." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. The skilled artisan is "[a] person of
9
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. We find this reasoning is
applicable here. Thus, we find such modification of Balasubramanian to
place the various components on separate circuit boards would have merely
been a "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions." Id. at 417.
Although Appellant contends the skilled artisan reading the
combination of references would have no reasonable motivation to place the
portions of the paths on different circuit boards (App. Br. 23), Appellant has
not provided any evidence that such modification of Balasubramanian would
have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art" (Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) ), or would have yielded unexpected results. Instead, as the
Examiner finds, Balasubramanian explicitly teaches that the placement of
various components such as the transmit and receive antennas on separate
boards are known "design choice[s]," wherein "one of ordinary skill in the
art ... would find [such] modification[ s] obvious" (Final Act. 9). Here, we
agree with the Examiner that Appellant's invention is simply a modification
of familiar prior art teachings (as taught or suggested by the cited references)
that would have realized a predictable result. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Minor
differences between the prior art and a claimed device may be a matter of
design choice absent evidence to the contrary. See In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309,
314 (CCPA 1965).
Therefore, on this record, and by the preponderance of evidence, we
are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we also
sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 16 and claims 19-21
10
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
falling therewith (App. Br. 20) over Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, Frederick,
and Balasubramanian.
Appellant does not provide substantive arguments for claims 17 and
18 depending from claim 16 (App. Br. 26-27). Accordingly, we also affirm
the rejections of claims 17 and 18 over Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier,
Frederick, and Balasubramanian, in further view of Garber.
Claim 22
As for claims 22 and 25, Appellant adds "Vishakhadatta can in no
way meet the claimed 'providing a common timing signal or derivatives
thereof from a master clock to each component in a RFID reader circuit ... "
as well as "to a power supply during RF transmit and/or receive activity"
(App. Br. 28). However, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on
Frederick for teaching "that it is further well known to supply clock signals
to the receiving portion of the RF transceiver circuitry" (Final Act. 4). Thus,
we are unconvinced of Examiner error in the reliance of the combination of
providing Frederick's clock timing signals to Vishakhadatta's switching
regulator, which supplies power during RF transmit and/or receive activity
for teaching and suggesting the contested limitations (Ans. 7).
Appellant does not provide substantive arguments for the dependent
claims depending from claim 22 (App. Br. 28-29). Accordingly, we also
affirm the rejections of claims 23 and 24 over Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier,
Frederick, and Garber; claim 25 over Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, and
Frederick; and claim 26 over Vishakhadatta, Cherpantier, Frederick, and
Balasubramanian.
11
Appeal2015-004978
Application 12/814, 108
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
12