Ex Parte Busser et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 20, 201512518725 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JENS-UWE BUSSER and MARTIN OTTO ____________ Appeal 2013-003544 Application 12/518,725 Technology Center 2800 _____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7–9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tang (US 2006/0176153 A1, published Aug. 10, 2006) and of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tang in view of Tanaka(US 2003/019612 A1, published Oct. 23, 2003). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. Appeal 2013-003544 Application 12/518,725 2 Appellants claim a mobile data storage device comprising a data storage card or data storage stick comprising an electric coil 7, an energy store 6, a data store 1, an interface unit 3, and a permanent magnet 8, wherein the interface unit is embodied for outputting or recording data and the energy store is inductively chargeable by means of a magnetic alternating field which can be generated by moving the permanent magnet in a region of the electric coil (sole independent claim 7, Figs. 1–4). A copy of representative claim 7, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 7. A mobile data storage device, comprising: a data storage card or data storage stick comprising: at least one electric coil; an energy store coupled to the coil; a data store; at least one interface unit coupled to the data store and the energy store; and at least one permanent magnet, and wherein the at least one interface unit is embodied for outputting or recording data which is or can be stored in the data store, and the energy store is inductively chargeable by means of a magnetic alternating field which can be generated by moving the at least one permanent magnet in a region of the electric coil. We sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Answer, and below. Appeal 2013-003544 Application 12/518,725 3 The §102 Rejection Appellants argue “[t]he Tang transponder is attached to a vehicle and thus is not an insert-able and removable hand carry-able device that can be hand shaken as can the devices of the terms ‘data storage card’ and ‘data storage stick’ of claim 7” (App. Br. 6). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because it relates to features not recited in the claim as correctly noted by the Examiner (Ans. 7). Appellants further argue Tang fails to disclose the claim 7 “interface unit . . . for outputting or recording data” because “Applicants believe that a transitory ‘signal’ sent between a ‘transceiver’ and a ‘controller’ [as in Tang] does not equate to ‘outputting data which is or can be stored in the data store’ as recited by claim 7” (App. Br. 5).1 Appellants provide no evidentiary or explanatory support for their belief and accordingly no support for their corresponding argument. Based on this record, the claimed interface unit is satisfied by Tang for the reasons given by the Examiner (see, e.g., Ans. 6). Regarding the claim 7 limitation “the energy store is inductively chargeable by means of a magnetic alternating field which can be generated by moving the at least one permanent magnet in a region of the electric coil,” Appellants contend that Tang fails to disclose generating a magnetic alternating field by moving a permanent magnet in a region of the coil (App. 1 This and various other of Appellants’ arguments appear to be little more than an observation that Tang does not use the identical claim language in disclosing a claim limitation (e.g., interface unit). Such unembellished observations have no value in assessing whether the Examiner's §102 rejection is erroneous. Appeal 2013-003544 Application 12/518,725 4 Br. 6). Notwithstanding this contention, Appellants acknowledge “Tang . . . mentions that the ‘magnet 302 moves relative to the electric coil 306 thereby varying the magnetic flux’” (id. quoting Tang ¶ 41). Particularly in light of this acknowledgment, Appellants’ contention is deficient because it is not accompanied by any explanation why Tang’s magnet 302 does not move in the region of coil 306 and or why this movement does not generate a magnetic alternating field as claimed. According to Appellants, spring 304 of Tang fails to satisfy the slider limitation of dependent claim 8 because this spring allegedly “does not aid the movement of the magnet” (App. Br. 7). Appellants offer no support for this allegation. Moreover, the allegation is contradicted by Tang’s disclosure at paragraph 41 and Figures 3–4. Appellants also argue that Tang fails to satisfy the drive wheel limitation of dependent claim 9 (App. Br. 8). The Examiner responds to this argument by finding that “the device shown in figure 3 of Tang is considered a ‘drive wheel’ because it is wheel shaped and drives the magnet’s motion” (Ans. 7). In their Reply Brief, Appellants do not challenge this specific finding regarding the claim 9 limitation (see Reply Br. 4). Especially because the Examiner’s finding is not disputed in this record, the argument under consideration lacks convincing merit. Regarding dependent claim 11, Appellants seem to contend that Tang’s transceiver is not powered by energy from an energy store (App. Br. 10). However, such a contention is contrary to the express disclosure of Tang (see, e.g., Abst. (“The transponder includes an electromechanical Appeal 2013-003544 Application 12/518,725 5 generator . . . for powering the control electronics and/or RF transceiver electronics of the transponder.”)). Finally, Appellants argue that coil 306 shown in Figure 4 of Tang is not planar as required by dependent claim 12 (App. Br. 10). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, each wire layer of coil 306 constitutes a planar coil. Although there are a multiple number of such wire layers and planar coils, such an embodiment is not excluded by claim 12 and is consistent with Appellants’ disclosure (see Spec. ¶ 21). For the reasons given in the Final Action, the Answer, and above, Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner’s §102 rejection of claims 7–9, 11, and 12. The §103 Rejection In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Tang with “an optical or acoustic display as taught by Tanaka because it allows the tag [of Tang] to clearly warn the user when there is some sort of problem (paragraph 0051 of Tanaka)” (Final Action 3– 4). Appellants contest this rejection by arguing that the warning generator of Tanaka is not powered by energy from an energy store as recited in claim 10 (App. Br. 9). Regardless, the combined teachings of Tang and Tanaka would have suggested so-powering the warning generator, and Appellants do not contend otherwise with any reasonable specificity. Appellants further argue that there is no rationale for combining the teachings of these references because in Tang “there would be no need to Appeal 2013-003544 Application 12/518,725 6 warn a user” (id.). We cannot agree with this argument. As fully explained by the Examiner, warning a user of a malfunction in the Tang device would be beneficial (Ans. 8). It follows that Appellants also fail to show error in the Examiner’s §103 rejection of claim 10. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED jgr Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation