Ex Parte Kruest et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 1, 2018

12982398 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/982,398 12/30/2010 James Robert Kruest 27189 7590 05/03/2018 PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 525 B STREET SUITE 2200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 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. 126330-015DV2 8290 EXAMINER ADNAN, MUHAMMAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2018 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): docketing@procopio.com PTONotifications@procopio.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES ROBERT KRUEST and GARY BANN Appeal2017-011165 Application 12/982,398 1 Technology Center 2600 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the non-final rejection of claims 2, 4---6, 9, 10, and 14--21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Neology, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-011165 Application 12/982,398 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (US 2005/0077353 Al, published Apr. 14, 2005) ("Oishi") and Hall et al. (US 2006/0158311 Al, published July 20, 2006) ("Hall"). Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oishi, Hall, and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oishi, Hall, and Neuwirth (US 2005/0258956 Al, published Nov. 24, 2005). Claims 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oishi, Hall, and Kato (JP 2006-140611, published June 1, 2006). THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention relates generally to "Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) systems," and more particularly to "systems and methods for reading and writing information from multiple RFID enabled documents." Spec. i-f 2. Independent claim 2 is directed to a method. App. Br. 10. Claim 2 recites (emphasis added): 2. A method for interrogating one or more stationary RFID tags in a static interrogation environment, the method compnsmg: providing a stationary antenna for transmitting and receiving RF signals to and from the one or more stationary RFID tags; 2 Appeal 2017-011165 Application 12/982,398 generating, by the stationary antenna, an electromagnetic interrogation field of a predetermined frequency in the interrogation environment; and moving a first conductor positioned inside the electromagnetic interrogation field while both the stationary antenna and the one or more stationary RFID tags are stationary, wherein moving the first conductor varies a position of at least one low energy region present within the electromagnetic interrogation field. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Oishi and Hall teaches the claimed "moving a first conductor positioned inside the electromagnetic interrogation field while both the stationary antenna and the one or more stationary RFID tags are stationary." App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants contend Oishi' s reflector "is stationary and fixed in position with respect to the RF tag" and does not teach a "movable conductor" or the claimed "moving the conductor ... while both the stationary antenna and the one or more stationary RFID tags are stationary." App. Br. 6. Appellants contend Oishi's reflector "provides data for various locations in order to aid in determining an optimal position to fix the reflector location," but does not teach moving the reflector, as claimed. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further argue Hall requires "either the antenna or the tag bearing object must move relative to each other," and does not teach 3 Appeal 2017-011165 Application 12/982,398 moving the conductor while "both the stationary antenna and the one or more stationary RFID tags are stationary." App. Br. 6-7. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds Oishi teaches a reflector that can be moved to different locations. Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds Hall's moving an RF reader antenna and RF tags with respect to each other teaches the claimed moving a conductor while the antenna and RFID tags are stationary. Id. We disagree with the Examiner's findings. Oishi teaches taking measurements with the "distant D 1 between the RF tag 101 and the reflector 102 in the RF tag module 104 is set to four values 8, 10, 15, and 18 mm, and corresponding measurements of the data reading were made," in order to determine "that the distance between them be preferably set to less than 15 mm." Oishi i-f 66. Hall teaches "minimizing coupling nulls between an electromagnetic field" with "each tag may be translated and/or rotated relative to the field or the field may be translated and/or rotated relative to the tags." Hall i-f 7. In other words, Oishi teaches taking measurements for different distances between the RF tag and the reflector, and fixing the distance between the RF tag and reflector for optimal reading, and Hall teaches moving the field and RF tags relative to one another. However, the disclosures of Oishi and Hall do not teach the claimed "moving a first conductor positioned inside the electromagnetic interrogation field while both the stationary antenna and the one or more stationary RFID tags are stationary." The Examiner has not explained how Oishi's fixing the distance between the RF tag and the reflector, combined with Hall's moving the field and RF tag in relation to one another, teaches the claimed moving the conductor while the antenna and RF tags are stationary. 4 Appeal 2017-011165 Application 12/982,398 The Examiner has not made a finding that anything else in Oishi or Hall teaches the disputed limitation, nor has the Examiner made findings that additional references provide teachings that make up for the deficiency in the rejection of claim 2. Thus, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the Examiner's rejections of independent claim 2 and dependent claims 4--6, 9, 10, and 14--21. DECISION The rejections of claims 2, 4--6, 9, 10, and 14--21 are reversed. REVERSED 5