Ex Parte Calvert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

14558373 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
14/558,373 12/02/2014 S. Mill Calvert calvert373 7001
24221 7590 12/21/2016
LOUIS VENTRE, JR
2483 OAKTON HILLS DRIVE
OAKTON, VA 22124-1530
EXAMINER
MCCORMACK, THOMAS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
lventre @ lventre. com
ventre, louis @ verizon. net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte S. MILL CALVERT
Appeal 2016-001299
Application 14/558,373
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “a system for detection of movement over
the ground at a remote location includes the use of granular radio-frequency
identification (RFID) tags modified to activate when stepped on.”
Specification, paragraph 1.
Appeal 2016-001299
Application 14/558,373
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A system for remote detection of troop movement using
granular radio-frequency identification tags that can respond
with a signal when altered by that movement, the system
comprising:
a scanner comprising a radio-frequency transmitter, a battery,
and a circuit to transmit an inquiring signal and retransmit a
responding signal received by the scanner;
a plurality of radio-frequency identification tags, wherein each
radio-frequency identification tag in the plurality of radio-
frequency identification tags comprises:
a radio-frequency identification chip that generates the
responding signal and has a maximum dimension in any
direction that is no larger than 6 millimeters,
an antenna connected to a radio-frequency identification
chip, wherein the antenna:
energizes the radio-frequency identification chip
when it receives the inquiring signal from the
scanner; and
can transmit the responding signal when the antenna
is activated;
a conductor formed so as to short circuit the antenna and
preclude the antenna from activating and transmitting the
responding signal, the conductor comprising a frangible
material that breaks, disconnects the short circuit and activates
the antenna when the conductor is stepped on by a person
walking on the radio-frequency identification tag; and,
a remote station configured to receive the responding signal
retransmitted by the scanner.
Rejection on Appeal
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rajapakse (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2006/0109109 Al; published May 25, 2006), Eren (U.S. Patent Application
2
Appeal 2016-001299
Application 14/558,373
Publication Number 2007/0152822 Al; published July 5, 2007), Chilton
(U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0271220 Al; published
November 6, 2008), and Wilson (U.S. Patent Application Publication
Number 2010/0001862 Al; published January 7, 2010). Final Rejection 3—
7.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 20, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
November 4, 2015), the Answer (mailed September 10, 2015), and the Final
Rejection (mailed April 29, 2015) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs.
Appellant argues that “Eren does not disclose a ‘conductor formed so
as to short circuit the antenna.’ Applicant’s short circuit of applicant’s
antenna prevents applicant’s antenna from being functional as an antenna.”
Appeal Brief 7. Appellant argues that Eren’s antenna is fully functional
because Eren discloses that the microchip is short circuited and not the
antenna as claimed. Appeal Brief 7 (citing Eren paragraph 34). Appellant
concludes, “the function of the conductor acting on something other than the
antenna is different from applicant’s conductor” and therefore the
“examiner’s finding to the contrary is error, which destroys the factual basis
for the rejection.” Appeal Brief 9.
The Examiner finds Eren discloses:
When microchip 102 is short-circuited, it will not respond to
signals received detected by antenna 104. Because microchip
102 will not respond to signals detected by antenna 104,
3
Appeal 2016-001299
Application 14/558,373
microchip 102 will not respond to any signals that are transmitted
by an RFID reader and will not transmit an RFID identifier.
Final Rejection 6.
Examiner finds it would have been obvious to an artisan “to modify to
Rajapakse’s remote troop detection system to include Eren’s RFID tag to
allow for selective activation by the end user and conservation of battery life
in active tag implementations.” We do not find Appellant’s argument
persuasive and agree with the Examiner’s finding because the Examiner
supported the legal conclusion of obviousness with rational underpinning.1
Appellant argues that Chilton uses a non-conductor frangible material
and Appellant’s claim 1 require the frangible material to be a conductor.
Appeal Brief 10. Appellant further argues, “There is no combination of
cited prior art showing a conductor comprising a frangible material
activating an antenna.” Appeal Brief 11. Appellant also argues that Chilton
does not disclose “the conductor comprising a frangible material that breaks,
disconnects the short circuit and activates the antenna when the conductor is
stepped on by a person walking on the radio-frequency identification tag”
limitation because “Chilton does not teach when the conductor is stepped
on by a person.'” Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner finds:
Chilton teaches a frangible material that breaks and activates the
device when the conductor is stepped on by a person ([0069],
1 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner can
satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
4
Appeal 2016-001299
Application 14/558,373
“[0069] The electronic device 18 further incorporates a dielectric
frangible diaphragm 38 which initially electrically isolates the
battery unit 24 from the device 18, wherein upon initial
activation of the switch 32, the diaphragm is broken such that the
battery unit 24 becomes electrically coupled to the device 18.”
[0010], “The input device may comprise at least one switch, such
as a push-button switch, rocker switch, pressure switch or the
like.”).
Final Rejection 6.
Claim 1 merely requires “a conductor formed so as to short circuit the
antenna.” The conductor could be either electrically conductive, thermally
conductive or both. The claim is silent in regard to the conductivity of the
conductor. Further, the manner in which the conductor is formed to short
circuit the antenna is not specified in the claim. The conductor need not be
electrically conductive to short the antenna based upon the nondescript
configuration set forth in the claim. Chilton does not disclose the act of
stepping on frangible material as claimed however because the claim merely
requires frangible material that breaks, there is no patentable distinction
between Chilton’s frangible material and the claimed frangible material.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim l.2
2 “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
5
Appeal 2016-001299
Application 14/558,373
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
6