Ex Parte Zegelin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 4, 2011

11324677 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte CHRIS ZEGELIN
_____________

Appeal 2009-008922
Application 11/324,677
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-008922
Application 11/324,677

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 18.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for conserving power in radio
frequency identification tags. See Spec. 1-5. Claim 1 is representative of
the invention and reproduced below:
l. A method for locating assets within an area, each asset having a
wireless circuit configured for low power consumption, the method
comprising:
providing power to an RFID tag portion of the wireless circuit; and
supplying power to a high power portion of the wireless circuit after a
triggering event, the RFID tag portion configured to transmit a signal when
the RFID tag portion is powered and the high power portion is not powered.

REFERENCES
Taylor US 4,965,604 Oct. 23, 1990
Harvey US 2003/0016136 A1 Jan. 23, 2003
Russell US 2005/0277471 A1 Dec. 15, 2005
Bridgelall US 2006/0022802 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
(filed Jul. 30, 2004)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bridgelall. Ans. 4-5.1

1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed October
14, 2008.
Appeal 2009-008922
Application 11/324,677

3

The Examiner has rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bridgelall in view of Russell. Ans. 6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bridgelall in view of Harvey. Ans. 7-9.
The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bridgelall. Ans. 9.
The Examiner has rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bridgelall in view of Harvey and Taylor. Ans. 9-10.

ISSUE
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellant’s contentions, on pages 4 through 6 of the Brief,2 with
respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 present us with the issue: did
the Examiner err in finding that Bridgelall teaches an RFID tag to transmit a
signal when the RFID tag portion is powered and the high power portion is
not powered?

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Appellant’s arguments
center on Bridgelall not teaching that the high power portion of the wireless
circuit receives no power. Brief 5; Reply Brief 2-3. The Examiner finds

2 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Brief filed July 21, 2008, and Reply
Brief filed October 8, 2008.

Appeal 2009-008922
Application 11/324,677

4

that Bridgelall teaches an RFID tag that sends signals a wake up circuit
which in turn transitions the remainder of the mobile unit (which the
Examiner equates to the high power portion) from a sleep to a full power
state. Ans. 11-12. We concur with these findings by the Examiner and
adopt them as our own. Appellant’s argument on page 3 of the Reply Brief,
that the sleep or low power mode is not the same as not powered, is not
persuasive. Bridgelall states: “[i]n the sleep mode many of the device
internal circuits are not drawing power from the mobile device power
source.” ¶ [0004]. Thus, it is the internal circuits which are not drawing
power that meet the claimed high power portion that is not powered.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Bridgelall teaches an RFID tag to transmit a signal when the RFID tag
portion is powered and the high power portion is not powered. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bridgelall.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant’s arguments on pages 7 through 10 of the Brief assert that
the secondary references applied in each of the Examiner’s rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 do not remedy the deficiency noted in the rejection based
upon 35 U.S.C. § 102. As discussed above, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error in the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102; thus Appellant’s
arguments directed to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which are based
upon the same rationale, are similarly not persuasive. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Appeal 2009-008922
Application 11/324,677

5

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1 through 18. Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 1 through 18.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 18 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

babc