Ex Parte Zachut et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

12078132 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2017)

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.
12/078,132 03/27/2008 Rafi Zachut 43440 1265
134987 7590
PRTSI, Inc.
PO Box 16446
Arlington, VA 22215
EXAMINER
NGO, TONY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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):
usptoMSmail@ipatent.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAFI ZACHUT, MEIR MORAG,
AMIR KAPLAN, and YUVAL STERN
Appeal 2016-004243
Application 12/078,132
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and STEVEN M.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1—9, 11—18, 22—31, 35, 36, 38-46, 48—
51, 61, 62, and 64—70. Claims 10, 19-21, 32—34, 37, 47, 52—60, and 63 are
cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 According to the Appeal Brief, Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, is
the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 29, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed March 9, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
February 2, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed November 4, 2014,
“Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed March 27, 2008, “Spec.”) for their
Appeal 2016-004243
Application 12/078,132
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The claims relate to a digitizer system comprising at least one object
incorporating an electronic tag. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 28, and 70 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A digitizer system comprising:
an object incorporating an electronic circuit configured
for radiating a first signal and a second signal in response to
querying, the second signal separate from the first signal,
wherein only the first signal is modulated with information for
identifying the object;
a digitizer sensor configured for detecting the second
signal while the object is positioned on or over the digitizer
sensor; and
a reader other than the digitizer sensor operative to both
query the object and detect the at least one modulated signal via
air with an antenna that is separate from the digitizer sensor;
circuitry configured for receiving input from the reader
regarding the first signal detected and input from the digitizer
sensor regarding location at which the second signal was
detected, and for determining an identity code based on the
input received by the reader, for determining a position on or
over the digitizer based on the input received from the digitizer
sensor, and for identifying the object and its position by
associating the position detected with the identity determined.
respective details.
2
Appeal 2016-004243
Application 12/078,132
References and Rejections
Morag, et al., US 2004/0095333 Al Filed Aug. 28, 2003
Ely US 7,812,268 B2 Filed Aug. 26, 2004
Drennan, et al., US 7,646,379 B1 Filed Jan. 10, 2005
Zotov, et al., US 2007/0262964 Al Filed May 12, 2006
Posamentier US 2008/0055260 Al Filed Aug. 30, 2006
1. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 22, 23, 25-31, 35, 36, 38-41, 49-51, 61, 62,
64, and 67—70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Drennan and Morag. Final Act. 3—45.
2. Claims 6, 15, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Drennan and Morag. Final Act. 45—48.
3. Claims 16—18, 43—46, 65, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Drennan, Morag, and Posamentier. Final
Act. 48-59.
4. Claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Drennan, Morag, and Ely. Final Act. 59—60.
5. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Drennan, Morag, and Zotov. Final Act. 60—62.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—9, 11—18, 22—31, 35, 36,
38-46, 48—51, 61, 62, and 64—70 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the
3
Appeal 2016-004243
Application 12/078,132
Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5—12.
Claims 1-5,7-9,11-14,22,23,25-31,35,36,38-41,49-51, 61,62, 64,
and 67-69: Obviousness over Drennan and Morag
Appellants argue these claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1.
Two signals radiated from an object.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
an object incorporating an electronic circuit configured for
radiating a first signal and a second signal in response to
querying, the second signal separate from the first signal,
wherein only the first signal is modulated with information for
identifying the object.
Appellants contend the Examiner inappropriately construes Drennan’s
modulated signal emitted by the stylus as two separate signals. App. Br. 5.
Appellants also contend the Examiner similarly misconstrues Morag. Id.
The Examiner finds that Drennan teaches stylus 14 generates the first
signal and the second signal. Ans. 19. The Examiner finds the first signal is
the modulated signal for identification purpose and the second signal,
separate from the first signal, is a square-wave signal for triangulation
purpose. Id. Specifically, the Examiner finds square-wave signals (i.e., the
claimed second signal) are transmitted to the stylus 14 via transmitters 30a
and 30b. Id. The Examiner further finds in stylus 14, transceiver 26
receives the incoming square-wave signals and resonant circuit 28 modulates
these square-wave signals with a resonant frequency which is the claimed
first signal. Id. at 20 (citing Drennan, col. 7,11. 29—52).
4
Appeal 2016-004243
Application 12/078,132
Claim 1 recites “an electronic circuit configured for radiating a first
signal and a second signal.” The Examiner finds that Drennan teaches stylus
14 generates the first signal and the second signal. Ans. 19. By implication,
the Examiner has found the claimed “electronic circuit configured for
radiating a first signal and a second signal” is a circuit within stylus 14. Of
necessity, it must follow that the Examiner finds stylus 14 radiates two
signals. The Examiner finds oscillating square-wave signals (which the
Examiner finds is the claimed second signal) are transmitted to the stylus 14
via transmitters 30a and 30b. Id. (emphasis added).
Drennan teaches stylus 14 comprises resonant circuit 28 and
transceiver 26. Drennan, col. 7,11. 29—30. Transceiver 26 receives the
oscillating square-wave signals emitted by transmitters 30a and 30b. Id. at
col. 7,11. 30-31. Transmitters 30a and 30b are located on display 10 which
is a distinct device from stylus 14. See Drennan, col. 7,11. 1—8. Drennan
teaches resonant circuit 28 modulates the received square-wave signal. Id. at
col. 7,11. 37-40. The Examiner finds this modulated signal is the claimed
first signal. Ans. 19. However, Drennan teaches the modulated signal is
transmitted by transceiver 26. Id. at col. 7,11. 37 40. Thus, Drennan teaches
an interrogation signal transmitted from display 10 and a separate and
distinct, response signal transmitted from stylus 14. Thus, the cited portions
of Drennan fail to teach “an electronic circuit configured for radiating a first
signal and a second signal,” as recited in Claim 1.
Independent Claim 28 recites limitations commensurate in scope with
the disputed limitation, discussed above. In view of the foregoing, we
decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1 and 28 and the claims dependent
therefrom.
5
Appeal 2016-004243
Application 12/078,132
Independent Claim 70: Obviousness over Drennan and Morag
Appellants contend independent Claim 70 is patentable in view of
their foregoing arguments advanced in favor of Claim 1. App. Br. 12. We
are not persuaded on this point because independent Claim 70 does not
recite limitations commensurate in scope with those discussed for Claim 1.
Radiating separate position and information signals.
Appellants contend neither Drennan nor Morag teaches “radiating in
response to querying, a position signal via a dipole and the information via
an alternate channel,” as recited in Claim 70. App. Br. 11. Appellants argue
each of Drennan and Morag teaches a stylus radiates a position signal which
is modulated to convey information. Id.
The Examiner finds Drennan teaches stylus 14 transmits two signals,
a square-wave signal and a modulated square-wave signal. Ans. 25.
As discussed above, we disagree with the Examiner and find Drennan
teaches stylus 14 transmits only a single signal. We, therefore, decline to
sustain the rejection of Claim 70.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—9, 11—18, 22—31, 35, 36, 38—46, 48—51, 61,
62, and 6A-70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6