Ex Parte Tucker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12930334 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/930,334 01/04/2011
20879 7590 02/16/2016
EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO
POBOX916
ONE SEAGATE SUITE 1980
TOLEDO, OH 43697
Randall L. Tucker
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.
10005B 7428
EXAMINER
KELLY, RAFFERTY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte RANDALL L. TUCKER1
Appeal2014-004595
Application 12/930,334
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 4--16, 18, and 19 as
unpatentable over Nakao et al. (US 2010/0032066 Al published Feb. 11,
2010 (hereinafter "Nakao")) in view of Ellis et al. (US 2008/0119957 Al
published May 22, 2008 (hereinafter "Ellis")) and claims 2, 3, and 17 as
unpatentable over these references in combination with Montecalvo et al.
1 Cooper Tire & Rubber Company is identified as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004595
Application 12/930,334
(US 5,330,527 issued July 19, 1994 (hereinafter "Montecalvo")). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellant claims an RFID device comprising first and second antenna
units (124X, 124Y) of conductive rubber sheet with a space between the first
and second antenna units defining a slot (132), and a microchip (126)
positioned in the slot and conductively engaged to the first and second
antenna units (independent claim 1, Figs. 5-7). Appellant also claims a
method for forming such an RFID device (independent claims 9 and 14 ).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An RFID device comprising:
(a) a first sheet of non-conductive material having an
outwardly facing peripheral edge;
(b) an antenna member having a first antenna unit of
conductive rl1bber sheet engaged to said first sheet and a second
antenna unit of conductive rubber sheet engaged to said first
sheet in spaced relationship with said first antenna member, the
space between said first antenna unit and said second antenna
unit defining a slot, said first antenna unit having an upper
edge, a lower edge and an end edge, each of said edges spaced
from the peripheral edge of said first sheet and said second
antenna unit having an upper edge, a lower edge and an end
edge, each of said edges being spaced from the peripheral edge
of said first sheet;
( c) a microchip positioned in said slot and conductively
engaged to said first antenna unit and to said second antenna
unit;
( d) a non-conductive member encircling said antenna
member and engaging the outwardly facing upper, lower and
end edges of each said antenna unit, said non-conductive
2
Appeal2014-004595
Application 12/930,334
member having an internal extension positioned in said slot;
and
( e) a second sheet of non-conductive material engaged to
(i) said antenna and (ii) said encircling non-conductive member;
said first and second sheets co-operating with said
nonconductive member to encapsulate said antenna and said
microchip.
The Examiner finds that Nakao discloses an RFID device having all
of the features recited in claim 1 except for the claimed first and second
antenna units of conductive rubber sheets (Final Action 2-3). Concerning
this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Ellis teaches antenna units of
conductive rubber sheets and concludes that it would have been obvious "to
combine the teachings of Nakao and Ellis since such would provide an
antenna that will minimize fracture of antenna components" (id. at 3).
Appellant argues that Nakao contains no teaching or suggestion of a
slot having a microchip positioned therein as required by the independent
claims (Br. 5---6, 8, 10, 12).
In response, the Examiner finds that Figure 2(A) of Nakao shows two
L-shaped antenna elements having a horizontal slot therebetween (Ans. 8-
9). Though not expressly stated in the Answer, the Final Action makes clear
that the Examiner finds Nakao's microchip 6A to be positioned in this slot
(Final Action 2).
Even assuming the L-shaped antenna elements of Figure 2(A) define a
horizontal slot between them, this Figure militates against the Examiner's
finding that microchip 6A is positioned in the slot. As plainly shown in the
Figure, the microchip is too large to be positioned in the space designated by
the Examiner as a horizontal slot. Further, as depicted in Figure 2(A), the
3
Appeal2014-004595
Application 12/930,334
microchip extends beyond the facing peripheral edges of the two L-shaped
antenna elements such that it must lie above or below, rather than in, the slot
between these elements.
For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has
erred in finding Nakao discloses a slot having a microchip positioned therein
as claimed. Therefore, the Examiner's§ 103 rejections will not be
sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
bar
4