Ex Parte Stucki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2017

12295690 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 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.
12/295,690 01/07/2009 Andreas Stucki FRG-18594 1391
40854 7590 07/27/2017
RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
38210 GLENN AVENUE
WILLOUGHBY, OH 44094-7808
EXAMINER
MCKIE, GINA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2017 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):
40854@rankinhill.com
spaw @ rankinhill. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS STUCKI and ANDREAS MARTIN HABERLI
Appeal 2016-006394
Application 12/295,6901
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, 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, 3—8, 21, 22, and 24—34. Claims 2 and 20 are canceled.
App. Br. 5. The Examiner objects to dependent claims 9—19 and 23, but
finds they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all
of the limitations of the claims from which they depend. Final Act. 34. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Kaba AG as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006394
Application 12/295,690
Invention
Appellants disclose the conversion of a data signal into an ultra­
broadband signal by way of a spread spectrum method and capacitive and/or
resistive transfer of the converted signal via the body of the user to a write
and/or read module. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method for transmitting data between an apparatus and a
write-and/or read module, the method comprising the steps of:
- representing the data by a sequence of code symbols;
- modulating the sequence of code symbols by a sequence of
chips with a chipping frequency, resulting in a direct sequence
spread spectrum signal;
- modulating the direct sequence spread spectrum signal onto a
carrier signal to yield a modulated direct sequence spread
spectmm signal;
- transmitting the modulated direct sequence spread spectrum
signal from the apparatus capacitively and/or resistively to a
write- and/or read module,
- wherein the chipping frequency and a carrier frequency of the
carrier signal are chosen so that the modulated direct sequence
spread spectrum signal has a bandwidth of at least 20% of a
center frequency, whereby the transmitted modulated direct
sequence spread spectrum signal is an ultra-wideband signal,
and so that the center frequency is not larger than 2 MHz.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 21, 24, 27—30, and 32—34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gersheneld et al. (US 5,914,701;
issued June 22, 1999), McCorkle et al. (US 2003/0161411 Al; published
2
Appeal 2016-006394
Application 12/295,690
Aug. 28, 2003), and Lang et al. (US 6,730,034 Bl; issued May 4, 2004).
Final Act. 6—25.
The Examiner rejects claims 3—8 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gersheneld, McCorkle, Lang, and Brethour et al.
(US 2005/0117628 Al; published June 2, 2005). Final Act. 26—28.
The Examiner rejects claims 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gersheneld, McCorkle, Lang, and Kuhlman et al.
(US 2003/0072445 Al; published Apr. 17, 2003). Final Act. 29-31.
The Examiner rejects claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gersheneld, McCorkle, Lang, and Coppersmith et al. (US
5,796,827; issued Aug. 18, 1998). Final Act. 32—33.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner primarily
relies on Gersheneld’s direct-sequence spread spectrum modulation
disclosures to teach or suggest the claim recitations. Final Act. 6—7 (citing
Gersheneld col. 5,11. 4—11, col. 6,11. 33—37). The Examiner acknowledges
that “Gersheneld does not specifically disclose . . . wherein the chipping
frequency and a carrier frequency of the carrier signal are chosen so that the
modulated direct sequence spread spectrum signal has a bandwidth of at
least 20% of a center frequency.” Id. at 7; see also Ans. 5. Thus, the
Examiner relies on McCorkle’s definition of ultra wide bandwidth waveform
in terms of a fractional bandwidth B/approximately equal to the waveform’s
center frequency and preferably in the range 0.25 to 2.0 to teach or suggest
wherein the chipping frequency and a carrier frequency of the carrier signal
are chosen so that the modulated direct sequence spread spectrum signal
has a bandwidth of at least 20% of a center frequency. Final Act. 7 (citing
3
Appeal 2016-006394
Application 12/295,690
McCorkle 1 113). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
modify Gersheneld in this manner to allow “immunity to scintillation and
multipath fading.” Final Act. 9 (citing McCorkle 1 111); see also Ans. 5, 7—
8 (citing, e.g., McCorkle 1113).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “neither scintillation
nor multipath fading are problems that can arise in capacitive-resistive
coupling because they are both specific to the signal transmission by radio
waves.” App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ contention that
McCorkle is directed to addressing scintillation and multipath fading in
radio wave transmissions accords with McCorkle’s disclosure that with
“conventional radio frequency communication schemes .... transmitted
energy . . . concentrated at. . . high frequencies ... is easily blocked by
terrain or other intervening objects that are present between the transmitter
and the receiver.” McCorkle 1 9 (emphasis added), cited in App. Br. 12. In
contrast, Gersheneld’s teachings relate to “[t]he [transmission of] low-
frequency, low power signals that, through capacitive coupling, pass as
displacement currents into and from the body of the user, which acts as a
conductive node.” Gersheneld Abstract (emphasis added).
Despite Gersheneld and McCorkle transmitting signals through
different means (capacitive coupling and radio waves respectively), the
Examiner does not present persuasive evidence that scintillation and
multipath fading issues are present or a potential concern in Gersheneld’s
system, or that an artisan of ordinary skill would believe McCorkle’s
approach to mitigating these issues in radio waves would be applicable in
Gersheneld. Rather, the Examiner’s findings with respect to Appellants’
contention merely further emphasize the teachings of McCorkle. See Ans.
4
Appeal 2016-006394
Application 12/295,690
8—10 (citing, e.g., McCorkle 1 111). However, the cited teachings of
McCorkle do not relate to whether scintillation and multipath fading are
problems with capacitive coupling transmission. See McCorkle till.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not present
sufficient findings showing that it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Gersheneld and McCorkle in the claimed
manner. App. Br. 14.
Moreover, the Examiner does not show that Lang, Brethour,
Kuhlman, or Coppersmith cure the noted deficiency of Gersheneld and
McCorkle. See, e.g., Final Act. 26—33. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, or of claims 3—8, 21, 22,
and 24—34, which contain similar recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—8, 21, 22,
and 24—34.
REVERSED
5