Ex Parte Twitchell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2014

11930777 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2014)

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.
11/930,777 10/31/2007 Robert W. Twitchell JR. 1177.084 1321
36790 7590 03/18/2014
TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
PO BOX 49309
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277-0076
EXAMINER
PHAM, TUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2014 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
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT W. TWITCHELL, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2011-008448
Application 11/930,777
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008448
Application 11/930,777

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
24-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to radio frequency identification based sensor.
Claim 24, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
24. A radio frequency (RF) addressable sensor comprising:

one or more sensor elements;

a sensor interface having an analog to digital converter coupled
to the one or more sensor elements;

at least one antenna;

an RF power and communications interface coupled to the at
least one antenna and the sensor interface;

a controller coupled to the RF power and communications
interface and the sensor interface; and

a memory coupled to the controller and the sensor interface,
wherein the memory is configured to store a tag identification
number;

wherein the sensor interface includes a memory, the memory
including a sensor data table,

wherein the RF power and communications interface, memory
and sensor interface are implemented in an integrated circuit.

Appeal 2011-008448
Application 11/930,777

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bandy US 2005/0088299 Al Apr. 28, 2005

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bandy.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bandy.
The Examiner has not expressly withdrawn the non-statutory
obviousness type double patenting rejection of claims 24-26, but has not
repeated it in the Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, we will not address the
non-statutory obviousness type double patenting rejection in our decision.

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note we have no jurisdiction over the Examiner’s
“objection” to claim 25 as being a “substantial duplicate” of claim 24.
Therefore, we do not address this in our decision.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s conclusory statements that the
priority document fails to provide support for certain limitations is
insufficient. (App. Br. 11). We disagree with Appellant’s contentions, as
discussed below.
Appellant has set forth no specific arguments for patentability of
claims 24-27 based upon the Bandy reference and only presents arguments
Appeal 2011-008448
Application 11/930,777

4
for antedating the reference with a claim of priority. Therefore, we limit our
review to the issue of priority.
Appellant contends the recitations of “a sensor interface having an
analog to digital converter” and “the RF power and communications
interface, memory and sensor interface are implemented in an integrated
circuit” in claim 24 is supported in the priority documents, thereby providing
a priority date at least as early as May 14, 2003, and obviating the § 102
rejection. (App. Br. 13). We disagree with Appellant’s contention, as
discussed below.

Anticipation
Analog to Digital converter
Appellant contends that:
[A]n Ordinary Artisan would understand the disclosure, in the
priority documents, of a WRT having a sensor component that
can comprise a microphone, as inherently disclosing use of a
sensor interface having an analog to digital converter,
particularly in combination with disclosure that the WR T is
configured to transmit sensor derived information in packets.
This is because an Ordinary Artisan would understand the
necessity of using an analog to digital converter to convert an
analog audio signal to a digital form prior to communication via
data packets.

(App. Br. 15) (footnote omitted).
The Examiner maintains that “there is no explicit support” for the
claimed “a sensor interface having an analog to digital converter” (Ans. 7)
(emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). Appellant counters page
23, lines 28 and 29 of the Specification discloses a sensor component
inherently includes a sensor interface having an analog to digital (A/D)
Appeal 2011-008448
Application 11/930,777

5
converter. (App. Br. 5-7). The Examiner maintains the single instance of
the word “microphone,” on page 23, lines 28-29 of the Specification, does
not inherently or necessarily include an “analog to digital converter.” (Ans.
7) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Examiner identifies U.S. Patent
No. 7,409,065 (to Lo), which is directed to detecting sound direction without
the use of an A/D converter. Id. While we agree with the Examiner that an
A/D converter is not required in the ‘065 patent, we find this is because the
reference is merely concerned with direction of the signal rather than content
of information from the sensor. Therefore, we find the Examiner’s position
unreasonable in the reliance upon the ‘065 patent.
Additionally, the Examiner identifies U.S. Patent No. 5,493,618 (to
Stevens) for maintaining a microphone does not need an analog to digital
converter. (Ans. 7). We again disagree with the Examiner and note the ’618
patent discloses:
Sound detector 50 has an output coupled to an input of
filter 52 and an input of amplifier 53 which has an output
coupled to an input of peak detector 54. An output of filter 52 is
coupled to an input of peak detector 56. Peak detectors 54 and
56 both have outputs coupled to respective inputs of the analog-
to-digital converter of microcontroller 58.

(Col. 3, ll. 51-56). Therefore, an A/D converter is required to digitize the
analog signal, and the Examiner’s reliance on the ’618 patent does not
support the Examiner’s position. Therefore, Appellant has shown a
necessity for an A/D converter to digitize the analog signal and error in the
Examiner’s finding of no support in the priority document.

Appeal 2011-008448
Application 11/930,777

6
Integrated Circuit
Appellant contends that “the priority documents not only explicitly
disclose the use of integrated circuits, but explicitly contemplate alternate
implementations of various functionality utilizing either disparate
components or an integrated circuit component.” (App. Br. 15). Appellant
further contends that “Appellant submits that an Ordinary Artisan would
understand the priority documents as inherently and implicitly disclosing the
possibility of implementing components in or as an integrated circuit,
particularly when those components are described as being ‘physically
connected.’” (App. Br. 15) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). The
Examiner maintains there is no support for “the RF power and
communication interface and sensor interface are implement[ed] in an
integrated circuit.” (Ans. 7) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Examiner maintains the Specification discloses “the microphone (sensor
component) cannot be integrated into ASIC 5024 of the WT component
5014 as arguing by the appellant. According to page 23, lines 26-31 of the
specification that disclosed only the memory is integrated into the ASIC
5024.” (Ans. 8). We note Appellant’s argument is based on a “possibility of
implementing components in or as an integrated circuit,” but that is
insufficient to show written description and enabling support for the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph in the priority
document.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s Specification and
priority document do not describe or suggest the claimed “RF power and
communications interface, memory and sensor interface are implemented in
an integrated circuit.” We further note Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
Appeal 2011-008448
Application 11/930,777

7
to identify further support in the priority document to antedate the Bandy
reference, which the Examiner relies upon. Since Appellant has not shown
support for the claimed subject matter in the priority document nor
submitted any substantive arguments to patentability, we agree with the
Examiner that the Bandy reference is a valid prior art reference. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of independent claim 24.
With respect to independent claims 25 and 26, Appellant repeats the
language of the claims and submits the same rationale as provided for claim
24. (App. Br. 16-19). Since we find the language of claims 25 and 26
contains similar limitations, which may be interpreted broadly and
reasonably to encompass plural elements on a single integrated circuit, we
find Appellant’s arguments unavailing. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of independent claims 25 and 26.
Obviousness
With respect to independent claim 27, Appellant repeats the language
of the claim and submits the same rationale as provided for claim 24. (App.
Br. 19-20). Since the language of claim 27 contains similar limitations as
those recited in claim 24, which may be interpreted broadly and reasonably
to encompass plural elements on a single integrated circuit, we find
Appellant’s arguments unavailing. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 27.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 24-26 based upon
anticipation, and the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 27 based upon
obviousness.
Appeal 2011-008448
Application 11/930,777

8
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 24-27 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc