Ex Parte Strzelczyk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12640840 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/640,840 12/17/2009 Martin J. Strzelczyk
126568 7590 08/24/2016
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
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.
SBL08813 9489
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN J. STRZELCZYK, SEAN A.CONNOLLY,
and MARK W. DURON
Appeal 2015-001811
Application 12/640,840
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Motorola Solutions, Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-001811
Application 12/640,840
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates generally to radio frequency
identification (RFID) reader devices, and in particular to improving the
operating stability and efficiency of an RFID reader device by adaptively
adjusting the operating point of a power amplifier of the RFID reader in
response to return loss of an RF interrogation signal caused by the reflection
of the signal from an antenna of the RFID reader device. See Spec. i-fi-f l, 12.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for adaptive operation of a power amplifier of a
radio frequency identification (RFID) reader device, the method
compnsmg:
producing a carrier wave from the power amplifier to an
antenna for transmitting to an RFID tag;
receiving a reflected signal back from the antenna as a
partial reflection of the earner wave;
estimating a return loss value of the reflected signal by
comparing a signal power of the carrier wave and a signal power
of the reflected signal; and
adjusting an operating bias point of the power amplifier in
response to the return loss value.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 7-9, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Soleimani et al. (US 2009/0146784 Al,
published June 11, 2009) and Osterberg et al. (US 6,029,051, issued Feb. 22,
2000). See Final Act. 3-10.
2. Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soleimani, Osterberg, and Chen et al. (US 8,008,996 B2,
issued Aug. 30, 2011). See Final Act. 10-12.
2
Appeal 2015-001811
Application 12/640,840
3. Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soleimani, Osterberg, Merkel et al. (US 6,456,093 B 1,
issued Sept. 24, 2002), and Kouyama (US 6,643,497 Bl, issued Nov. 4,
2003). See Final Act. 12-13.
4. Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soleimani, Osterberg, and Becker et al. (US
2004/0074976 Al, published Apr. 22, 2004). See Final Act. 13-14.
5. Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soleimani, Osterberg, and Mays et al. (US 6,83 8,989 B 1,
Jan. 4, 2005). See Final Act. 14--16.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Soleimani "fails to teach the step of adjusting the
amplifier bias point in response to the return loss value [as required by
claims 1 and 9]. App. Br. 7. Instead, Soleimani only teaches adjusting the
amplifier bias point in response to whether the reader is transmitting or
receiving, which is completely different." Id. Addressing the Examiner's
findings regarding Osterberg, Appellants argue that although Osterberg
"describes calculating the return loss of a signal," it "does not describe
[using] return loss to adjust amplifier bias." Id.
We agree with Appellants. Although Soleimani does teach adjusting
an amplifier bias point, this adjustment is based on whether the RFID reader
is in a transmission state or reception state. Soleimani i-f 11. We agree with
Appellants that Soleimani does not teach or suggest that the operating bias
of the amplifiers is adjusted based on, or in response to, a return loss value.
We further agree with Appellants that Osterberg, which teaches a method
3
Appeal 2015-001811
Application 12/640,840
and device for measuring the return loss of a radiofrequency signal, also
does not teach or suggest adjusting the amplifier operating bias point in
response to this measured return loss. See App. Br. 7-9 (citing Osterberg
4:18-39, 52-57; Figs. 4---6).
We also disagree with the Examiner's finding that Osterberg's "inputs
of the logarithmic comparator (17') are connected directly to the respective
amplifiers (16 and 26) to effect adjustment." Ans. 5 (citing Osterberg 4:55-
57) (emphasis removed). This adjustment does not refer to the bias point of
the amplifiers, rather it refers to adjusting the dynamic range required for the
power sensing circuits.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9, which are the only pending independent claims.
For the same reasons we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of the
pending dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-16 is reversed.
REVERSED
4