Ex Parte Friedrich et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2012

11104438 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/104,438 04/13/2005 Ulrich Friedrich 1000/0125PUS1 9904
60601 7590 05/29/2012
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
SYED, NABIL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ULRICH FRIEDRICH and MICHAEL PANGELS
____________

Appeal 2009-015142
Application 11/104,438
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and DENISE M.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-015142
Application 11/104,438

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a technique for selecting transponders
in a relatively time-efficient manner. See generally Spec. ¶ 0012. Claim 1
is reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for selecting one or more transponders from a plurality
of transponders by a base station, the method comprising:
transmitting, by the base station, a selection command, wherein
after receiving the selection command, all addressed transponders
generate and store a respective random number that determines a
second time point when each of the addressed transponders transmits
a respective identification to the base station; and
after all of the addressed transponders generate and store the
random number, determining whether at least one transponder is
addressed by the selection command in that all of the addressed
transponders substantially simultaneously transmit the respective
identification to the base station at a first time point,
wherein if more than one transponder is addressed, each of the
addressed transponders transmits the respective identification to the
base station at least once more at the second time point on the basis of
the respective random number that each transponder generated.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Wood, Jr. US 6,061,344 May 9, 2000
Heng US 6,538,563 B1 Mar. 25, 2003

Appeal 2009-015142
Application 11/104,438

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Wood, Jr. (hereafter Wood). Ans. 4-6.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wood and Heng. Ans. 6-7.1

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER WOOD
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wood
discloses devices (e.g., transponders) generating random numbers in
response to an interrogator (e.g., a base station) sending a command. Ans. 4.
The Examiner further discusses that these numbers or values are used to
determine whether to reply to an interrogator or transmit a reply at a second
time point. See Ans. 9-11.
Appellants argue that the random numbers generated in Wood’s
devices do not determine the time point when each device will transmit
identification information. Br. 6. Rather the interrogator makes this
decision using a depth-first and breadth-first approach. Id.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Wood discloses the transponders generate and store a random number
that determines a second time point when each of the addressed transponders
transmits an identification to a base station?

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the art rejections for claims 2, 7, 10, and 12.
See Ans. 3. The arguments concerning these claims (Br. 7-12) are rendered
moot.
Appeal 2009-015142
Application 11/104,438

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Wood discloses an interrogator 26 sending a command causing
each device 12 of a group of responding devices to select a random number
from a known range and use the number as that device’s arbitration number.
Col. 6, ll. 6-9.
2. Wood discusses an example of two devices 12, one having random
value (RV) of 1100 and another having RV of 1010. The interrogator tries
to establish communications without collisions between the two devices 12
attempting to communicate at the same time. When the AVALUE is set to
0000 and the AMASK is set to 0000, the evaluation of (AMASK &
AVALUE)==(AMASK & RV) for these devices is true, and both devices
respond back to the interrogator. Col. 6, ll. 44-62.
3. Wood also states the interrogator next sets AMASK to 0001 and
AVALUE to 0000 and transmits an Identity command. The evaluation of
both devices 12 using the formula, (AMASK & AVALUE)==(AMASK &
RV), is again true, and both devices 12 respond. Col. 6, l. 63- col. 7, l. 11.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part, all addressed
transponders to generate and store a respective random number that
determines a second time point when each of the addressed transponders
transmits a respective identification to the base station. As the Examiner
correctly explains (Ans. 9), each device 12 in Wood (e.g., a transponder)
generates a random number after receiving a command from an interrogator.
See FF 1. This alone does not explicitly state the random number
Appeal 2009-015142
Application 11/104,438

5
determines a second time point when each addressed transponder transmits
an identification to the base station as recited in claim 1. However, citing to
column 6, line 51 through column 7, line 11, the Examiner further explains
how Wood discloses this recitation. See Ans. 9-11.
Wood discusses an example of the interrogator 26 receiving two
replies from two devices 12 at substantially the same time or two
transponders (e.g., devices 12) transmitting substantially simultaneously
respective identification to the base station (e.g., 26) at a first time point.
See FF 2; see also col. 5, ll. 14-19. Wood further discusses at a later time
(e.g., a second time point) both devices again responding back to an
interrogator after evaluating the equation, (AMASK &
AVALUE)==(AMASK & RV). See FF 3. Thus, as the Examiner explains
(Ans. 10-11), Wood discloses each transponder (e.g., devices 12) transmits
the respective identification in the form of a reply from each device 12 to the
base station (e.g., interrogator 26) at least once more at a second time point.
Because the random value or RV is used in this evaluation to determine
whether a device responds, this response at a second time point is based on
or determined, at least in part, by the generated random number as recited in
claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3-6, 8, and 9 not
separately argued with particularity (Br. 9).

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WOOD AND HENG
Claim 11 depends from claim 5 and further recites “the regeneration
of the new random number is terminated upon receipt of a synchronization
Appeal 2009-015142
Application 11/104,438

6
mark that is transmitted by the base station.” Appellants argue claims 11
and 12 together. Br. 12. Appellants assert that the Examiner acknowledges
Wood does not recite the “selection command” in claim 10 and that “[a]
cursory view of Heng reveals that Heng also fails to teach or suggest this
feature of claim 10.” Id. However, “this feature in claim 10” concerning the
selection command including a group select command is not found in claim
11. Appellants’ argument is thus not commensurate in scope with
claim 11. We therefore are not persuaded and will sustain the rejection of
claim 11.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 9 under
§ 102 and claim 11 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw