Ex Parte Tong et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 18, 2011

11117976 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 18, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM TONG, GEOFFREY LYON, PHILIP KUEKES,
ZHIYONG LI, S. Y. WANG, and R. STANLEY WILLIAMS
____________

Appeal 2009-010453
Application 11/117,976
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-010453
Application 11/117,976

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is an assembly for monitoring an
environment including a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and a
sensing unit (Spec. 3:3-5)
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An assembly for monitoring an environment, the
assembly comprising:

a radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tag; and
a sensing unit configured to be activated by a radio
frequency (“RF”) signal received by the RFID tag and sense
information regarding an environment, wherein the sensing unit
is further configured to be programmed by the RF signal.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based upon the teachings of Sorrells (US 6,720,866 B1).
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Sorrells and Kenny (US 2004/0036595 A1).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Sorrells teaches all the features of the pending
claims except claim 3. Particularly, the Examiner finds Sorrells teaches a
sensing unit that includes an RFID tag device 202 and a sensor 204 as shown
in Fig. 2B (Ans. 4, 10). That is, the Examiner interprets the RFID tag as part
Appeal 2009-010453
Application 11/117,976

3
of the sensing unit. Thus, when an “interrogator makes a change to the data
stored in the RFID tag, it is making a change in the sensing unit” (Ans. 3-4,
11). The Examiner also finds Sorrells teaches “the sensing unit is
‘configured to be programmed’” because an internal code of the RFID tag is
changed by a command from the interrogator. Further, Sorrells teaches the
sensing unit is programmed “by the RF signal” since the interrogator is able
to send a command to change an internal digital code of the tag. (Ans. 11)
However, as Appellants assert, the Examiner is interpreting the RFID
tag of Sorrells to be both the claimed sensing unit and separate RFID tag
(Reply Br. 3). Appellants also assert, Sorrells’ sensor is not programmed by
an RF signal as claimed (App. Br. 8). That is, it is the sensing unit that is
programmed by the RF signal and not the RFID tag itself. Thus, for the
reasons set forth in Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, Sorrells does
not teach every feature of Appellants’ claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is not
anticipated. Further, since independent claims 7 and 22 also include similar
limitations regarding a sensor programmed by an RF signal, claims 1, 7, and
22, and those dependent therefrom, are also not anticipated.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Since Kenny does not cure the
deficiencies of Sorrells, claim 3 is not obvious over Sorrells and Kenny.

Appeal 2009-010453
Application 11/117,976

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22 is
reversed.
REVERSED

rwk