Ex Parte VoegeleDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 21, 200910752458 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte KEVIN D. VOEGELE ____________________ Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,4581 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Decided: September 21, 2009 ____________________ Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF, and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Honeywell International, Inc. Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for resolving contentions among passive identification tags within any Radio Frequency Identifications system. Employing a tree-splitting algorithm, a reader may divide a possible range of values into a number of smaller ranges. For each smaller range, the reader may then poll the tags to determine which tags have tag values that fall within the smaller range. If more than one tag responds simultaneously, then the reader may further divide the smaller range into even smaller ranges and poll the tags with respect to those even smaller ranges. Once the range partition gets small enough, the reader may then opt to poll the tags for a match of each possible value in the range, rather than partitioning further. This arrangement enables the reader to efficiently identify tags, by quickly eliminating from analysis any range of tag values to which no tags match or only one tag matches (Abstract, Spec. 2:6-12, 6:16 - 7:.22). Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for identifying a plurality of passive identification tags in a field of view, each tag having a respective identification value, and each tag having a register value within a predetermined range, the method comprising the following steps: splitting the predetermined range into a plurality of first sub-ranges; for each first sub-range, requesting each tag whose register value falls within the first sub-range to communicate the tag's identification value; and in response to a determination that more than one tag has a register value within a given first sub-range: 2 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 splitting the given first sub-range into a plurality of second sub- ranges; and for each second sub-range, requesting each tag whose register value falls within the second sub-range to communicate the tag's identification value. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Brophy US 4,071,908 Jan. 31, 1978 Dodd US 5,339,073 Aug. 16, 1994 Schoch US 5,973,609 Oct. 26, 1999 The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Dodd and Schoch. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Dodd, Schoch, and Brophy. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed May 17, 2007), the Reply Brief (filed October 22, 2007), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed August 21, 2007) for their respective details. ISSUES Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dodd and Schoch would change Dodd’s principle of operation, in that Dodd requires that “an n-bit number requires an n-level search” (App. Br. 3, FF 5). Appellant contends that the Examiner has improperly dissected Appellant’s claimed invention into discrete elements. Appellant contends that the Examiner has erred in his finding that the combination of Dodd and Schoch teaches that the plurality of second sub- 3 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 ranges result “in response to a determination that more than one tag has a register value within a given first sub-range” (App. Br. 5-6). The Examiner finds that the combination of Dodd and Schoch would not change the principle operation of Dodd since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the tags of Dodd respond to group polls with their unique ID in an effort to reduce the number of sub-group polls during a lightly loaded operation (Ans. 7; FF 2, 6). In response to the argument of improperly dissecting the Appellant’s claimed invention, the Examiner finds that Dodd's interrogation process splits the transponders into a plurality of sub-groups, wherein each sub- group is formed in response to a group reply signal (Ans. 6, 8, FF 2 (emphasis added)). Appellant’s contentions present us with the following two issues: 1. Did Appellant show that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dodd and Schoch would not change Dodd’s principle of operation? 2. Did Appellant show that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dodd and Schoch teaches that a plurality of second sub- ranges result “in response to a determination that more than one tag has a register value within a given first sub-range”? 4 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The Invention 1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns a method and system for resolving contentions among passive identification tags within any Radio Frequency Identifications system. Employing a tree-splitting algorithm, a reader may divide a possible range of values into a number of smaller ranges. For each successive range, the reader may then poll the tags to determine which tags have tag values that fall within the smaller range. If more than one tag responds simultaneously, then the reader may further divide the smaller range into even smaller ranges and poll the tags with respect to those even smaller ranges. Once the range partition gets small enough, the reader may then opt to poll the tags for a match of each possible value in the range, rather than partitioning further. This arrangement enables the reader to efficiently identify tags, by quickly eliminating from analysis any range of tag values to which no tags match or only one tag matches (Abstract; Spec. 2:6-12; 6:16 - 7:22). Dodd 2. Dodd teaches access control equipment that includes an interrogation unit which emits an interrogation signal to a plurality of transponders wherein each transponder has a distinct, stored identity code having a plurality of fields. The interrogation unit determines the identity of each and every valid transponder within range by sending an interrogation signal to all transponders within range to interrogate the fields of each transponder in a serial manner using a tree search wherein successive 5 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 interrogations are narrowed such that only those transponders for which group reply signals have been received are further interrogated. Any transponder having a matching bit designated by the interrogation signal sends a group reply signal back to the interrogation unit. (Abstract, Fig. 1A, 1B, col. 7, ll. 47-55). 3. Dodd teaches that the equipment can operate regardless of the number of transponders within range. The group reply signals do not interfere one with another, wherein there is clear resolution of the signals. Each transponder is only required to transmit an identity code once in an entire interrogation sequence (col. 2, ll. 39-47). 4. Dodd’s objective is to provide “[t]he simplest (and fastest) tree search” (col. 4 ll. 46-53, 62-63, col. 5, ll. 57-59). 5. Dodd teaches that a tree search requires an n-level search for an n-bit number. Dodd acknowledges that the time savings are only significant with this type of tree search when there are a large number of transponders, e.g., 65536 transponders require only 16 interrogations (col. 4 ll. 43-53). Schoch 6. Schoch teaches a communication system that includes a controller and a plurality of data terminals, wherein the controller polls each data terminal which in response transmits a data message that includes protocol data and its terminal identification number over a radio frequency channel back to the controller (Abstract, col. 5, ll. 9-12) 7. Schoch teaches that the controller effectively assigns data terminals to polling groups based on the number of data collisions that occur, and dynamically adjusts the number of groups as the number of 6 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 collisions changes. Each data terminal can transmit data only when its group is polled, and cannot transmit out of turn because of a polling signal transmitted by the controller (col. 2, ll. 37-46). 8. Schoch teaches that the protocol control for data transmission is dynamically changed from a contention protocol to a polling protocol and to intermediate combinations of the two in response to the data transmission needs of the system's users. When the system is heavily loaded, a polling protocol is used in which each user is granted time in sequence. When the system becomes less heavily loaded, users are divided into groups that are then polled, the size of the groups being selected on the basis of the number of users having data to transmit. When the system is lightly loaded, all of the users are assigned to one large group, in effect adopting a contention protocol (col. 2, ll. 15-36). Brophy 9. Brophy teaches an adaptive polling technique and probing system wherein a polling station queries groups of remote stations and, in the event that an acknowledgement is received from a group, proceeds to probe the group by calling smaller and smaller subgroups using a tree search technique until an individual remote station acknowledging the probe is called whereupon this remote station returns a stored message (Fig. 1, col. 2, l. 54-col. 3, l. 26). PRINCIPLES OF LAW When evaluating the scope of a claim, every limitation in the claim must be considered. It is improper to dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the 7 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 claim as a whole must be considered. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (Fed. Cir. 1981) ("It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis."). On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419- 420. The determination of obviousness must consider, inter alia, whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In 8 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, our reviewing court has held that “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995). If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) (Claims were directed to an oil seal comprising a bore engaging portion with outwardly biased resilient spring fingers inserted in a resilient sealing member. The primary reference relied upon by the Examiner disclosed an oil seal wherein the bore engaging portion was reinforced by a cylindrical sheet metal casing. The primary reference taught the device required rigidity for operation, whereas the claimed invention required resiliency.) The court reversed the rejection holding the "suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate" Id. at 813. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3 and 5-10 We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 9 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 Claim 1 recites “splitting the predetermined range into a plurality of first sub-ranges; for each first sub-range, requesting each tag whose register value falls within the first sub-range to communicate the tag's identification value; and in response to a determination that more than one tag has a register value within a given first sub-range: splitting the given first sub- range into a plurality of second sub-ranges; and for each second sub-range, requesting each tag whose register value falls within the second sub-range to communicate the tag's identification value.” Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dodd and Schoch would not change Dodd’s principle of operation, which Appellant perceives to require a tree search in which “an n- bit number requires an n-level search” (App. Br. 3, FF 5). Appellant contends that the Examiner has improperly dissected Appellant’s claimed invention into discrete elements, since claim 1 does not merely recite tags responding with their identification values but that the plurality of second sub-ranges result “in response to a determination that more than one tag has a register value within a given first sub-range” (App. Br. 6). The Examiner finds that the combination of Dodd and Schoch would not change the principle operation of Dodd, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the tags of Dodd respond to group polls with their unique ID, as taught in Schoch, in an effort to reduce the number of sub-group polls during a lightly loaded operation (Ans. 7; FF 2, 6). The Examiner finds that Dodd discloses that the access control equipment can operate regardless of the number of transponders within range, wherein the interrogation unit will analyze the series of group reply signals and will be informed by those signals of the 10 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 identity codes of those transponders present (Ans. 5, FF 3). In response to Appellant’s argument that the Examiner improperly dissected the Appellant’s claimed invention, the Examiner finds that Dodd's interrogation process splits the transponders into a plurality of sub-groups, wherein each sub-group is formed in response to a group reply signal (Ans. 8, FF 2. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We do not find that inclusion of the teachings of Schoch, wherein the interrogation unit requests the identification number from the transponders, would change the basic principle of operation of Dodd, for the following reasons. First, Dodd teaches that the identity code of the transponder is transmitted to the interrogation unit (FF 3). Further, Dodd’s objective is to provide “the simplest (and fastest) tree search” (FF 4). Although the tree search of Dodd requires an n-level search for an n-bit number, Dodd acknowledges that this requirement only provides significant time savings when there is a large number of transponders, i.e. 65536 transponders require only 16 interrogations (FF 5). Enhancing the teachings of Dodd with those of Schoch will further improve the access control equipment such that fewer interrogations are required. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it is clear that those skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dodd and Schoch to provide “the simplest (and fastest) tree search” by reducing the number of sub-group polls when the system is lightly loaded (Ans. 7, FF 5). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Dodd discloses that the access control equipment can operate irrespective of the number of transponders within range, wherein the interrogation unit will analyze the 11 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 series of group reply signals and will be informed by those signals of the identity codes of those transponders present (Ans. 5, FF 3). Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Dodd's interrogation process splits the transponders into a plurality of sub-groups, wherein each sub-group is formed in response to a group reply signal (Ans. 8, FF 2 . Therefore, we find that the combination of Dodd and Schoch teaches that a plurality of second sub-ranges result “in response to a determination that more than one tag has a register value within a given first sub-range,” as required by claim 1. We therefore find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor that of dependent claims 2-3 and 5-10. Claim 4 Appellant argues that claim 4 is allowable for the reasons presented with regard to respective independent claim 1 without presenting any argument as to why this claim should be separately patentable. (App. Br. 8). As noted supra, we affirmed the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, because Appellant has failed to identify any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dodd and Schoch in view of Brophy, for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 1, supra. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dodd and Schoch would not change Dodd’s principle of operation. 12 Appeal 2009-003905 Application 10/752,458 Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dodd and Schoch teaches that a plurality of second sub- ranges result “in response to a determination that more than one tag has a register value within a given first sub-range.” ORDER The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 is 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 ELD HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. 101 COLUMBIA ROAD P O BOX 2245 MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation