Ex Parte Brown et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201712963498 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/963,498 12/08/2010 Anthony Brown 054054/396334 2956 133839 7590 06/26/2017 'Zebra Teehnnlnaies; Pnmnratinn EXAMINER (Legacy) 3 Overlook Point ISLAM, HASAN Z Lincolnshire, IL 60069 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2017 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): ip_legal @ zebra, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANTHONY BROWN, BORIS Y. TSIRLINE, MARTIN SCHWAN, KARL TORCHALSKI, TOM ZWIER, and DANIEL F. DONATO Appeal 2016-005757 Application 12/963,4981 Technology Center 2800 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JULIA HEANEY, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 35—39 and 41—44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to “a mobile printing and encoding system” and, more specifically, “a printer and associated RF 1 The real party in interest is identified as ZIH Corp. App. Br. 2. 2 In this Opinion, we reference the Specification filed Dec. 8, 2010 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Feb. 5, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Sept. 16, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 10, 2016, and the Reply Brief filed May 10, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-005757 Application 12/963,498 (“radio frequency”) encoder that is structured and adapted for positioning aboard a mobile unit such as a forklift.” Spec. 12. Independent claim 35 is illustrative (key limitations in dispute italicized): 35. An antenna assembly comprising: an antenna conductor; an input port; and a terminating load, wherein the antenna assembly is configured to: transmit electromagnetic energy to read information from, write information to, or both read and write information to one or more radio frequency transponders in one or more media units; be detachably coupled to an encoder electronics assembly, and be removable from an antenna housing without the encoder electronics assembly being mechanically detached from the antenna housing. App. Br. 14 (Claims App’x). Claim 37 depends from claim 35 and requires that the antenna assembly comprise “an antenna casing structured to concentrate the electromagnetic energy on a first media unit and prevent electromagnetic coupling with other media units.” Id. Claim 38 depends from claim 37 and further requires that the antenna casing comprise “a first casing surface comprised of an electromagnetic energy blocking material; and an interrogation window in the first casing surface configured to allow the electromagnetic energy to pass therethrough.” Id. The Examiner maintains and Appellants appeal the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): 2 Appeal 2016-005757 Application 12/963,498 1. Claims 35—37, 42, and 44 over Lindsay;3 2. Claims 38 and 39 over Lindsay in view of Whitehouse;4 3. Claim 41 over Lindsay in view of Tavormina;5 and 4. Claim 43 over Lindsay in view of Cathey.6 Ans. 3; Final Act. 5—8; App. Br. 2. ISSUE7 Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Lindsay discloses an antenna assembly configured to be detachably coupled to an encoder electronics assembly? We decide this issue in the affirmative. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES After thoroughly reviewing the arguments of both the Appellants and the Examiner, we find the preponderance of evidence supports the Appellants’ position that Lindsay fails to disclose an antenna assembly that is detachably coupled to an encoder electronics assembly as required by sole independent claim 35. Because claim 35 is the sole independent claim and the Examiner’s additional cited prior art and rejections do not cure the deficiencies of Lindsay, we need only address the rejection of claim 35. 3 US 7,098,794 B2, iss. Aug. 29, 2006. 4US 2003/0112187 Al, pub. June 19, 2003. 5 US 2006/0132312 Al, pub. June 22, 2006. 6 US 6,806,812 Bl, iss. Oct. 19, 2004. 7 Appellants do not separately argue claims 36, 39, and 41^44. App. Br. 6- 12. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), and based upon the lack of arguments directed to the subsidiary rejections, claims 36 and 41—44 will stand or fall together with independent claim 35 from which they depend. Claim 39 will stand or fall with claim 38 from which it depends. 3 Appeal 2016-005757 Application 12/963,498 The Examiner finds that Figure 4 of Lindsay discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna conductor (item 404), an input port (item 406), an antenna assembly configured to transmit electromagnetic energy to read or write information to one or more radio frequency transponders (item 402) that is detachably coupled to an encoder electronics assembly (items 408, 410), and removable from an antenna housing (the bottle) without the encoder electronic assembly being mechanically detached from the antenna housing. Final Act. 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because: The Examiner cites the second chip and the second antenna of Lindsay against the “encoder electronics assembly” of claim 35. This is an error. The second chip and the second antenna of Lindsay do not individually or collectively encode anything. Put another way, none of the second antenna, the second chip, or any combination thereof encodes anything or supports an encoding component (e.g., by providing data to be encoded to an encoding component). Nevertheless, the Examiner asserts that the second chip and the second antenna of Lindsay are an encoder electronics assembly. This position in untenable. An assembly that does not encode anything or support an encoding process cannot be reasonably interpreted as an encoder electronics assembly. App. Br. 9. In response, the Examiner finds that Lindsay’s chip 408 and antenna 410 are commensurate with the recited encoder electronics assembly. Ans. 9. The Examiner further responds that: Lindsay teaches "The code in the second RFID 408 chip is detachable whenever the bottle is scanned. In one embodiment, if the bottle has not been tampered with, the two RFID chips 402, 408 are scanned, yielding a first code and a second code which are known to belong together. If only one code is found instead 4 Appeal 2016-005757 Application 12/963,498 of two, the bottle is rejected. Rapid scanning of many bottles at once allows a computer to compare the list of first RFID chips 402 from each bottle with the list of second RFID chips 408 from each bottle, to determine if some bottles do not have the second RFID chip 408 that is paired with the first chip 402, allowing automatic detection of the presence of a tampered bottle in the scanned group." (col. 9, line 60 to col. 10, line 5) Put another way, a code encoded within chip 408 is transmitted by antenna 410 via electromagnetic energy when the chip 408 is scanned, hence the chip and antenna being commensurate with “an encoder electronics assembly.” Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that “transmitting a code in response to an interrogation signal from a scanner (as described in Lindsay) is not the same as encoding a transponder.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants quote paragraph 23 of the Specification as defining the term “encoder” to mean “a device adapted to transmit electromagnetic energy into an interrogation zone and thereby read and/or write information to one or more RFID transponders located within the interrogation zone.” Id. According to Appellants, chip 408 and antenna 410 of Lindsay “do not read and/or write information to one or more RFID transponders and, thus, cannot be reasonably interpreted as an encoder. Rather than encoding a transponder, the chip 408 and the antenna 410 of Lindsay react to a signal by transmitting a code.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately explained how chip 408 of Lindsay discloses the encoder assembly required by claim 35. Below is Figure 4 of Lindsay: 5 Appeal 2016-005757 Application 12/963,498 FIG. 4 First anterma (on cap! 404 Conductive leads 406 ^ Circuit with transistor 412 First RFID — chip 402 Second RFID chip 408 Second i antenna 410 ■ / Figure 4 is a diagram of a container that has two RFID chips for tamper detection. Lindsay 3:44-46. Chip 408, together with antenna 410 identified by the Examiner as an encoder electronics assembly that is detachably coupled to antenna 404 (Final Act. 5), has a code encoded within it such that, when chip 408 together with chip 402 are scanned, it allows a computer to determine if the container has been tampered with (Ans. 9; Lindsay 9:60—10:5). Chip 402 becomes deactivated when the conductive pathway between it and antenna 404 is broken (Final Act. 6; Lindsay 9:34— 38). Although chips 408 and 402 are electronic components coupled to antenna assemblies, they merely store data that is read by a scanner rather than providing data to be encoded to an encoding component as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 9). The Examiner’s finding that the code encoded within chip 408 is transmitted by antenna 410 via electromagnetic energy when the chip is scanned and therefore makes chip 408 and antenna 410 an encoder electronics assembly (Ans. 9) does not adequately explain why a code that is read is necessarily an encoder as required by claim 35. 6 Appeal 2016-005757 Application 12/963,498 Specifically, the Examiner’s finding does not adequately explain how chip 408 and antenna 410 read and/or write electronic information to transponders, which is what paragraph 23 of the Specification discloses as the function of the encoder. See Spec. 23; Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, on this record, we reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 35—39 and 41^44. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 35—39 and 41 44. The Examiner’s decision is REVERSED. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation