MARISENSE OY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2021

2019004655 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021)

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. 14/386,859 09/22/2014 Hannu Karhuketo 0696-0430PUS1 8068 127226 7590 01/11/2021 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Suite 100 East Falls Church, VA 22042-1248 EXAMINER GIRMA, FEKADESELASS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2021 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): mailroom@bskb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HANNU KARHUKETO ____________________ Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 16 and 19 through 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Marisense Oy is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an electronic label tag which contains several electronic modules which consume energy from a battery and can be deactivated to minimize energy consumption. Specification p. 3 ll. 16- pg. 4 ll. 31. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An electronic label tag (100) for an electronic label tag system, the electronic label tag (100) comprising: a machine readable identifier module, a communication module for receiving product related information, a display module being provided for displaying product related information, said electronic label tag (100) further comprises: attachment means for attaching the electronic label tag (100) to a product (201), wherein the machine readable identifier module activates the communication module and the display module in response to a command received by the machine readable identifier module; and a battery (107), wherein battery consuming modules of the electronic label tag are selectively deactivated to a state where energy consumption of the battery is minimal or zero when the electronic tags (100) are not in use and thereafter being activated when the electronic tags (100) are in use. Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 3 REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 15, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Forster (US 2011/0289023 A1, published Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Beigel (US 2007/0018832 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007). Final Act. 2-9. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Forster, Beigel, and Ridenour (US 6,113, 539, issued Sept. 5, 2000). Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Forster, Beigel and Handyside (US 2009/0058659 A1, published Mar. 5, 2009). Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner rejected claims 19 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Forster, Beigel and Ahlf (US 7,098,792 B1, issued Aug. 29, 2006). Final Act. 11-13. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 15, 20 and 21. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection based upon the combination of Forster and Beigel is in error for two reasons. First, Appellant argues that the combination of Forster and Beigel does not teach the claim 1 limitation directed to the battery consuming modules of the electronic tag being selectively deactivated to a state where the energy consumption of the battery is minimal or zero. Appeal Br. 4-6. Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in concluding the skilled artisan 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 31, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed June 6, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 15, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 4 would combine the teachings of Forster and Beigel. Appeal Br. 6-9. These arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection based upon Forster and Beigel. With respect to the first issue, Appellant argues that Forster teaches a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag where an RFID part can be activated and the display can be activated and deactivated. Appeal Br. 4. However, Appellant asserts Forster does not teach the claim limitation of a machine reader module that activates the communication module and the display module, and the limitation directed to the battery consuming modules being selectively deactivated to a state where energy consumption of the battery is minimal or zero. Appeal Br. 4-5. Further, Appellant argues that Beigel “only selectively enables or powers limited portions of the tag circuitry on an as-needed basis only” and thus “[i]t is clear that Beigel et al. does not ‘selectively deactivate’ the battery as set forth in the present invention.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Beigel ¶ 6). The Examiner finds that Forster teaches an RFID in a retail tag, were the display of the tag is alternated between an activated state and a deactivated state but does not explicitly disclose the modules are deactivated to reduce the battery consumption to a minimal or zero amount. Answer 4-5 (citing Forster ¶22, 115, Fig. 5, 6.), Final Act. 2-4. Further, the Examiner finds that Beigel teaches a semiactive RFID tag that includes a power management system which controllably enables limited portions of the tag to conserve battery power, and thus teaches the claimed limitation directed to selectively deactivating battery consuming modules. Answer 5. (citing Beigel ¶ 35), Final Act. 4-5 (citing Beigel ¶ 36). Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 5 We have reviewed the teachings cited by the Examiner and concur with the Examiner’s findings. Specifically, Beigel states the battery management system is designed to conserve power by selectively coupling portions of blocks of circuitry to the battery to minimize power consumption. See Beigel ¶33, 36. Appellant’s argument on page 6 of the Answer-that Beigel does not “selectively deactivate” the battery-is not commensurate with the scope of the claim 1. Claim 1 recites that the battery consuming modules are selectively deactivated, not that the battery is deactivated. Further, the claim recites an alternative: that the battery consumption is minimal or zero, thus the scope of the claim includes the battery consumption being minimized and above zero. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. With respect to the second issue, Appellant argues that Beigel does not relate to electronic price labels, and therefore a skilled artisan would not combine the teachings of Beigel with Forster. Appeal Br. 6-7. Further, Appellant argues that Forster teaches that the device may include a power level indicator, and as such, the skilled artisan would not modify the device to deactivate the battery as: one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify this configuration to deactivate the battery wherein battery consumption is minimal or zero. The teaching in the Forster et al. publication is that the battery is always activated and a power level indicator 226 may be used to see the level of battery life remaining in the retail tag 20. Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 6 Appeal Br. 7. (Citing Forster ¶ 95). Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided an adequate rationale to combine the teachings of Forster and Beigel. Appeal Br. 7-8. These arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. The Examiner finds that Forster teaches a retail tag which can include a RFID processor and a display device. Answer 8 (citing Forster ¶¶ 24, 77). The Examiner finds that Beigel teaches a RFID tag that has a battery and a power management system for activating circuits of the tag as required thus conserving and prolonging battery life. Answer 9, Final Act 4-5 (citing Beigel 36). The Examiner finds that the skilled artisan would combine these teachings: to provide an improved signal transmission range and data transmission speed, but further wherein the RFID tag includes a power management system for minimizing battery power drain upon circuit activation. In addition, it is desirable to provide such improved RFID tag which is not limited to reader-initiated communication, but instead may perform a variety of tag- initiated communication protocols and provides full utilization of the surface area of the tag for enhancing communication distance. As a result, battery power drain is substantially minimized, whereby a relatively small and preferably thin film and/or flexible battery can be used with extended battery service life. Answer 9. We have reviewed the teachings of Forster and Beigel and concur with the Examiner’s findings and we consider the Examiner’s conclusions to be supported by ample evidence. We are not persuaded that because Beigel does not relate to price labels, the skilled artisan would not combine the teachings with Forster. As identified by the Examiner, both references are Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 7 concerned with RFID tags, and Beigel identifies that RFID tags often convey information associated with an object that they are attached to. See Beigel ¶ 2. Forster also teaches an RFID tag, and we do not consider that Forster’s teaching of pricing information on the tag would discourage the skilled artisan from applying the teachings of Beigel’s RFID tag battery power management system to Forster’s RFID tag. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, on page 7 of the Appeal Brief, that Forster’s teaching that the tag may have a battery power level indicator, shows that the skilled artisan would not combine the references. Appellant has not shown that the use of a power level indicator is incompatible with the power management system of Beigel. We note that Forster states “the power level indicator 224, 226 may function alternatively between ‘on’ and ‘off’ position, or on as needed basis to reduce the power consumption,” which would suggest that it is compatible with Beigel’s power management system that disables circuits to save power. See Forster ¶ 95. Additionally, Forster teaches that the power indicator is included in just one embodiment. Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Forster and Beigel and Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. As Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to claims 2, 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 15, 20 and 21, which are similarly rejected based upon the combination of Forster and Beigel, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 15, 20 and 21. Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 8 Claims 3, 5, 16, 19 and 22. Appellant argues that claims 3, 5, 16, 19 and 22 are dependent claims and the additional teachings of Ridenour and Ahlf do not make up for the deficiencies argued with respect to the rejection based upon Forster and Beigel. Appeal Br. 9-10. As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection based upon Forster and Beigel. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 16, 19 and 22 for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Dependent Claim 11 Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 11 is in error because: The Examiner relied on the Handyside et al. publication for a disclosure of an “alarm signal.” However, Handyside et al. is directed to a container with a dye that is spilled when the components are forced apart. One of ordinary skill in this art would not combine the teachings in Handyside et al. to modify the disclosure set forth in Forester et al. Appeal Br. 9. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. It appears that Appellant misapprehends the rejection of claim 11. Claim 11 is directed to the manner in which the tag is attached to an object, by a pin which can be removed by a magnetic remover. The Examiner found that the Handyside teaches such an attachment mechanism for a tag and that the skilled artisan would use the attachment mechanism in Forster’s device to “effectively capture the balls in the clutch to create strong resistance and prevent removal without proper Appeal 2019-004655 Application 14/386,859 9 Equipment.” Final Act 11 (citing Handyside ¶ 25). While Handyside’s tag is concerned with triggering an alarm, it is the teaching of the mechanism to attach the tag that the Examiner is relying upon, and Appellant has not addressed this finding or conclusion that this attachment mechanism with Forster’s tag is obvious. Thus, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, 20, 21 103 Forster, Beigel 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, 20, 21 3, 5, 16 103 Forster, Beigel Ridenour 3, 5, 16 11 103 Forster, Beigel, Handyside 11 19, 22 103 Forster, Beigel, Ahlf 19, 22 Overall Outcome 1-16, 19-22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018). AFFIRMED