Ex Parte Godzwon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12097790 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/097,790 06/17/2008 Krzysztof Leszek Godzwon
24737 7590 05/03/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2005P02710WOUS 3393
EXAMINER
KING, CURTIS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRZYSZTOF LESZEK GODZWON
and JERZY HUSAKOWSKI
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-18, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 6 and 19 are canceled. App. Br.
12 and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to a
method for controlling communication in an RFID system. Spec. 1, 11. 2-3. 2
Claim 15 is representative and reads as follows (with emphases
added to the disputed limitations):
Fuiioka
15. An RFID device comprising:
control and communication circuit configured to perform
operation of a first type, to determine whether a detection
state exists by detecting whether broadcasting is
performed from at least a second RFID device, if said
detection state exists, to allow said RFID device to
perform operation of a second type, said operation of a
second type being different from said operation of a first
type, said operation of a second type including
responding to a request for an identifier.
References
us 5,719,387 Feb. 17, 1998
Zukowski US 2004/0246103 Al Dec. 9, 2004
Steeves US 2010/0045443 Al Feb.25,2010
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Zukowski, Fujioka, and Steeves.
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 14, 2013
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Nov. 12, 2013 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 24, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply
Brief filed Apr. 22, 2014 ("Reply. Br."); and, the Specification filed June 17,
2008 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
Issues
Appellants' arguments in the Briefs present us with the following
issues:
1. Does the combination of Zukowski and Fujioka teach or
suggest allowing an RFID device "to perform operation of a second
type, said operation of a second type being different from said
operation of a first type, said operation of a second type including
responding to a request for an identifier," as recited in claim 15 and
similarly recited in claim 1?
2. Does Zukowski teach or suggest "wherein said operation of a
first type comprises broadcasting a first data sequence," as recited in
claim 4?
3. Does the combination of Zukowski, Fujioka, and Steeves teach
or suggest "receiving a plurality of data items from a plurality of
respective RFID devices," as recited in claim 11?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-18. Appellants have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 11. Unless indicated otherwise, we adopt as
our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner
relating to claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-18 in the action from which this appeal
is taken (Final Act. 2-9) and in the Examiner's Answer in response to
3
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-7). For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Issue 1
The Examiner relies on the combination of Zukowski and Fujioka in
the rejection of claim 15. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4--6. In particular, the
Examiner finds it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in
the art "to implement in the device/method of Zukowski the provision of two
sets of data within a tag and allowing each piece of data having a different
security level, in which the second type of access operation include[ s] the
identifier, such as taught by Fujioka." Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds that
responding to the read command/request from the reader of the tag memory
SA in Fujioka, which includes the identifier information, constitutes the "a
request from said reader terminal for an identifier of said first RFID device,"
as recited in the disputed limitations. Id. at 5-6 (citing Fujioka Figure 6, 3:
45---61, and 4:45--48).
Appellants argue Zukowski cannot be reasonably interpreted as
teaching the limitations in dispute. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3. In
particular, Appellants argue the writing privileges obtained upon entry of a
valid password as disclosed in Zukowski "cannot reasonably [be] interpreted
as including responding to a request for an identifier, as the expanded
writing privileges were allowed in response to the provision of a password,
not a request for an identifier." App. Br. 6. Appellants also argue the
Examiner has misunderstood the language of claim 15 because the claim
does not require the provision of an identifier, but a response to a request for
an identifier. App. Br. 6-7. According to Appellants, "[m]erely providing an
identifier does not mean that such provision was done in response to a
4
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
request therefor." Id. at 7. In regard to Fujioka, Appellants argue it contains
no mention of "identifying data" being read by its system, fails to disclose
its system ever receiving a request for an identifier, and "[t]he read/write
commands that Fujioka discloses are performed in response to the provision
of a password, not a request for an identifier." App. Br. 7. Thus, Appellants
argue, Fujioka, whether alone or in combination with Zukowski and Steeves,
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 15. Id. at 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred with regard to claim 15. The Examiner's rejection is based on the
combined teachings of Zukowski and Fujioka. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4---6. In
particular, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art "to implement in the device/method of Zukowski the
provision of two sets of data within a tag and allowing each piece of data
having a different security level, in which the second type of access
operation include[s] the identifier, such as taught by Fujioka." Ans. 6.
Because the Examiner relies on Fujioka as teaching or suggesting the
operation of a second type including "responding to a request for an
identifier," Appellants' arguments that Zukowksi does not teach this
limitation are unpersuasive. See App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3. Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ).
5
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
Regarding Fujioka, the Examiner finds Fujioka teaches the tag
memory area SA includes password information and identifier information
and "that the inclusion of the password with the read command/request from
the reader would allow reading (i.e. retrieving/accessing) of the tag memory
SA which includes the identifier information." See Ans. 4--5 (citing Figure
6, 3:45---61, 3:62 to 4:31, and 4:45--48). The Examiner also finds that "the
reading command from the reader to read/interrogate the tag for the tag to
respond back to the reader with the []tag's memory-stored information
including the identifier constitutes the claimed 'a request from said reader
terminal for an identifier of said first RFID device,' since the reader in effect
'requests' the tag for such information with the reading command, as well-
known in the art." Ans. 6. In the Reply Brief, Appellants did not respond to
these findings and has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to
rebut them. We note that Fujioka teaches that, for a read/write apparatus (an
external apparatus) to read from and write onto the system area SA, the
read/write apparatus transmits a command for read/write access with a
password identical with the system password stored in the system area SA.
Fujioka 3:55-61, 4:45--48. Thus, on this record, we agree with the Examiner
that Fujioka teaches or at least suggests that the read command, with the
system password, sent from the read/write apparatus constitutes "a request
for an identifier of said first RFID device," and that the corresponding
reading (i.e., retrieving/accessing) of the tag memory SA, which includes the
identifier information, constitutes "said operation of a second type being
different from said operation of a first type, said operation of a second type
including responding to a request for an identifier," as recited in claim 15.
6
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
Based upon the Examiner's findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art to teach or suggest the disputed limitations
of claim 15, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal
conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 15. For the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, which Appellants argue is patentably distinguishable
over the cited art for the reasons discussed in regard to claim 15. See App.
Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2. We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, and 16-18, which are not argued
separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37( c )(1 )(iv).
Issue 2
Appellants argue Zukowski fails to teach or suggest "wherein said
operation of a first type comprises broadcasting a first data sequence," as
recited in claim 4. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants argue
that, although paragraph 37 of Zukowski teaches the first access type may be
to read data, as the Examiner finds in the Final Action at page 6, "allowing
the reading of data is not the same as broadcasting a data sequence." App.
Br. 9. Appellants also argue the Examiner errs in relying on paragraphs 28
and 3 7 of Zukowski because the Examiner relies on this disclosure as
teaching "said operation of a second type" and the disclosure interpreted to
teach the operation of a first type cannot also be the same disclosure
interpreted to be the operation of a second type. Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments with regard to claim
4. The Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraph 37 of Zukowski teaches the
operation of a first type, that is to read tag stored data without providing a
7
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
valid password. Ans. 3, 6. Thus, contrary to Appellants' argument, this
operation is not the same type as the operation of a second type taught or
suggested by Fujioka in which a password is provided to access the secure
area SA, as discussed supra regarding issue 1. The Examiner also finds, and
we agree, Figure 4 and paragraph 28 of Zukowski teach that data is stored in
memory 102 of tag 100 in elements "110, 112, .... " Ans. 6. The Examiner
further finds, because these data elements are in series/ sequence,
"transmission of such data would be in the same order sequence." Id.
Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or evidence to rebut this
finding. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Zukowski
teaches or suggests the "operation of a first type comprises broadcasting a
first data sequence," as recited in claim 4. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 4.
Issue 3
Appellants argue the combination of Zukowski, Fujioka, and Steeves
fails to teach or suggest "receiving a plurality of data items from a plurality
of respective RFID devices," as recited in claim 11.3 App. Br. 9-10.
Although Appellants acknowledge that paragraph 27 of Zukowski teaches "a
plurality of processing sites may transmit data to the tag," Appellants argue
these processing sites are not RFID devices or equivalent to a plurality of
RFID devices. Id. at 10. The Examiner finds as follows:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Appellant's
argument, because i-f0027 of Zukowski discloses a plurality of
processing sites may transmit data to a tag. Note at these
processing sites there would be a plurality of tags. Thus, the
3 Although Appellants state that claim 11 depends from claim 1 (App. Br. 9),
we note claim 11 depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1.
8
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
processing sites would receive a plurality of data items from a
plurality of respective RFID devices. Furthermore, if interpreting
from the standpoint of each tag, then the each tag memory SA
shown by Fujioka in the combination of Zukowski in view of
Fujioka and Steeves includes a plurality of data items (see Fig. 6
of Fujioka).
Ans. 7.
We agree with Appellants' argument with regard to claim 11. First,
the Examiner's finding that the processing site would receive a plurality of
data items from a plurality of RFID devices is not convincing because claim
11 requires "a first RFID device ... determining whether a detection state
exists ... and, if said detection state exists, ... receiving a plurality of data
items from a plurality of RFID devices," rather than the processing site
receiving a plurality of data items. App. Br. 12-13 (Claims App.). Second,
the Examiner's finding that the tag memory SA in Fujioka includes a
plurality of data items is not convincing because the Examiner has not
shown that the combination of Zukowski, Fujioka, and Steeves teaches or
suggests this plurality of data items is received "from a plurality of
respective RFID devices," as recited in claim 11. Thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-10, and
12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal2014-006040
Application 12/097,790
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10