Ex Parte Tsirline et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13719745 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/719,745 12/19/2012 Boris Y. Tsirline 054054-426978 1023
97928 7590 03/01/2017
'Zebra Teehnnlnaies; Pnmnratinn
EXAMINER
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
WIMER, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
IP_Legal @ zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZIH CORP.
Appeal 2016-000740
Application 13/719,7451
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and N.
WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 10-13, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tuttle (US 5,572,226; Nov. 5, 1996);
claims 5 and 7—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tuttle; and
claims 14—20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
1 The named inventors are Boris Y. Tsirline, Karl Torchalski, and Martin A.
K. Schwan. The real party in interest is stated to be ZIH Corp., which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Zebra Technologies Corporation (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-000740
Application 13/719,745
combined prior art of Tuttle and Holodak (5,305,002; Apr. 19, 1995). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added to highlight disputed
language):
1. A coupler array for an RFID enabled system having
a media conveyance system configured to transport media units
that each include at least one transponder along a feed path in a
feed direction, the coupler array comprising:
a plurality of near field couplers for transmitting signals
to one or more transponders in the feed path, wherein:
the plurality of near field couplers includes a first coupler
located at a first position relative to the feed path and a second
coupler located at a second position relative to the feed path;
the first position is at a different location than the second
position;
the first coupler and the second coupler each include one
or more conductive strips;
the first coupler is configured to promote side
propagation of electromagnetic fields concentrated in a near
field region of the first coupler; and
the second coupler is configured to promote side
propagation of electromagnetic fields concentrated in a near
field region of the second coupler, the electromagnetic fields
concentrated in the near field regions of the first coupler and the
second coupler providing an interrogating portion of the signals
transmitted to the one or more transponders in the feed path.
Appellant mainly presents arguments directed to independent claim 1
(App. Br. 11—19; Reply Br. 2—6). Accordingly, all of the claims stand or fall
2
Appeal 2016-000740
Application 13/719,745
together, except for separately argued dependent claims 21 and 22 (App. Br.
19, 20).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability.
However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that the claimed subject matter of representative claim 1
(as well as separately argued dependent claim 21) is anticipated within the
meaning of § 102 in view of the applied prior art of Tuttle, and Holodak.
Accordingly, we will sustain all of the Examiner’s rejections for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer, including the Examiner’s Response
to the Argument section, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
The dispute is whether Tuttle’s coupler elements (e.g., 34 and 35 in
Fig. 3B) are encompassed by the recitations that the first and second
couplers are each “configured to promote side propagation of
electromagnetic fields concentrated in a near field region” in claim 1 (App.
Br. 11—19; Ans. 3—8), and similarly whether the one or more conductive
strips of the first coupler “define a coupling side edge” thereof (claim 21,
Claims Appendix).
3
Appeal 2016-000740
Application 13/719,745
Appellant does not specifically and/or adequately dispute the
Examiner’s findings that Tuttle shows a resonant coupler similar to those
disclosed and claimed by Appellant (e.g., Ans. 5; see also Reply Br. 2, 3).
Appellant however argues that the couplers in Tuttle do not have
“electromagnetic fields concentrated in a near field region” (Reply Br. 2,
contending the Examiner has rendered “concentrated” meaningless).
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As de facto
pointed out by the Examiner, Appellant’s Specification contains no limiting
or special definition of “electromagnetic fields concentrated in a near field
region.” As explained by the Examiner
The first paragraph on p. 15 of the Brief alleges that the claimed
couplers in Claim 1 are different than those in Tuttle because of
the described patterns in Tuttle. However, the dipoles are
clearly arranged in their respective positions on the substrate
10. Again, appellant calls Tuttle's dipoles as being examples of
"standing wave radiating elements." However, since appellant's
blueprint of coupler construction also is 1/2 resonant
wavelength, there is no difference between Tuttle's and the
claimed invention. In the final paragraph on p. 15 of the Brief,
appellant concludes that the couplers in Tuttle create EM fields
that are not confined to respective near field regions. However,
it is clear that the couplers in Tuttle do indeed have a
concentration in the near field, simply because there is a
reactive near field associated with each coupler/antenna only
dependent upon the distance from the element, and the
environment, like appellant's environment, is in the art of RFID
tag reading. The structures are the same, being 1/2 wavelength
resonant elements.
(Ans. 7)
Appellant does not provide any persuasive reasoning or evidence that
such couplers as depicted in Tuttle would not have each had
“electromagnetic fields concentrated in a near field region” as recited in
4
Appeal 2016-000740
Application 13/719,745
claim 1, giving the term “concentrated” its broadest reasonable
interpretation. While Appellant argues that “concentrated” means the
coupler generates a “leaky” electromagnetic field with limited range (Reply
Br. 3), it does not direct us to any limiting definition of “a concentrated
field” (Spec, generally). A preponderance of the evidence also supports the
Examiner’s position that the claims are not commensurate in scope with
Appellant’s arguments (e.g. Ans. 8). See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant's arguments fail from the outset because .
. . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”).
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
position (Ans. generally). Notably, Appellant has not directed our attention
to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the
Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable, nor to any portion of the
Specification that limits the definition of “concentrated in a near field
region” to exclude the type of electromagnetic fields in Tuttle as pointed out
by the Examiner.
A preponderance of the evidence also supports the Examiner’s
position with respect to dependent claims 21 and 22 (Ans. 10).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, as well
as the obviousness rejections which are not separately argued.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
DECISION
AFFIRMED
5