Ex Parte Rauber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2014

12097576 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MICHAEL RAUBER and DANIEL ARNITZ
_____________

Appeal 2012-007160
Application 12/097,576
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-007160
Application 12/097,576

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF CASE
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method of communication between a Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) reader and transponders via a radio
channel, the method comprising:
measuring a noise level of the radio channel prior to
starting communication between the RFID reader and the
transponders;
selecting an error correction algorithm depending on the
measured noise level; and
setting both the RFID reader and the transponders to the
selected error correction algorithm.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–9, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Klayman et al. (US 5,699,365; Dec. 16, 1997),
Hohberger et al. (US 2004/0090310 A1; May 13, 2004), and Diorio et al.
(US 2005/0099269 A1; May 12, 2005).
Claims 10–12 and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Klayman, Hohberger, Diorio, and Cooper (US
2002/0069038 A1; June 6, 2002).
Appeal 2012-007160
Application 12/097,576

3

Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klayman, Hohberger, Diorio, and Juzswik (US 6,801,134
B1; Oct. 5, 2004).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klayman, Hohberger, Diorio, and Bowers et al. (US
5,883,582; Mar. 16, 1999).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Klayman,
Hohberger, and Diorio teaches or suggests measuring a noise level of the
radio channel prior to starting communication between the RFID reader and
the transponders (hereinafter “disputed limitations”), as recited in exemplary
claim 1, and independent claim 6? App. Br. 3–6.
With respect to the dependent claims, Appellants’ arguments present
us with the same issue identified above with respect to claim 1.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner cited Klayman and
Diorio for the disputed limitations. Ans. 3, 4.
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each
argument presented by the Appellants on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer.
We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth
Appeal 2012-007160
Application 12/097,576

4

by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 3–5.
We further note that the Examiner has found actual teachings in the
prior art and has provided a rationale for the combination (see Ans. 4). The
Supreme Court has held that in analyzing the obviousness of combining
elements, a court need not find specific teachings, but rather may consider
“the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions,” id. at 417, and the basis for an obviousness rejection must
include an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, the Examiner has provided a rationale for
the combination. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has provided
sufficient motivation for modifying Klayman with the teachings of Diorio.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2012-007160
Application 12/097,576

5

tj