Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2020

14996506 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2020)

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.
14/996,506 01/15/2016 Felix Gow INFAP624US 9776
51092 7590 06/01/2020
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
GIRMA, FEKADESELASS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2020 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@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FELIX GOW and LIFENG GUAN1
____________________

Appeal 2019-002384
Application 14/996,506
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3 through 15, and 17 through 23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Infineon Technologies AG, is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002384
Application 14/996,506

2
INVENTION
The invention relates generally to a tire parameter monitoring system
comprising at least two radio frequency (RF) repeaters, wherein each of the
RF repeaters is dedicated to an individual tire sensor unit. Abstract. Claim
1 is reproduced below.
1. A tire parameter monitoring system, comprising:
at least two sensor units;
at least two RF repeaters;
wherein each of the at least two RF repeaters is dedicated
to an individual sensor unit of the at least two sensor units and
dedicated to an individual wheel of a vehicle, and
wherein each RF repeater is configured to receive sensor
signal/data transmitted via RF by the corresponding sensor unit
and retransmit the sensor signal/data in form of an RF repeater
signal based on the corresponding sensor signal/data to a central
unit of the tire parameter monitoring system.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3 through 15, and 17 through 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable by Uh (US 2016/0221403 A1,
published Aug. 4, 2016), and Guan (US 2015/0367692 A1, published Dec.
24, 2015). Final Act. 2–9.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 26,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed January 30, 2019 (“Reply Br.”);
Final Office Action mailed May 7, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed December 27, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-002384
Application 14/996,506

3
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection based
upon Uh, and Guan assert the rejection of claim 1 is in error for two reasons.
Appeal Br. 5–14. First Appellant argues that neither of the references teach
a RF repeater configured to receive sensor signal data transmitted by RF and
retransmit the data by RF to the central unit. Appeal Br. 5–8. Second,
Appellant argues that it is not obvious to combine Guan’s teaching of a
repeater near the tire, with Uh’s system of having a repeater per tractor or
trailer. Appeal Br. 11–14.
With respect to the first issue, Appellant argues that Uh teaches using
LF (Low Frequency) to transmit data to the repeaters which is not the same
as transmitting RF. Appeal Br. 6–7. Further, Appellant argues that Guan
teaches the central unit, not the repeater receives RF data from the sensors,
and while the repeater receives RF signals from the central unit, it transmits
LF signals to the sensors. Appeal Br. 7–8. Additionally, Appellant argues
that in the art of Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS), there is a
difference between Low Frequency and Radio Frequency. Appeal Br. 8–11.
We agree with Appellant, there is ample evidence on the record to
demonstrate within the art of TPMS, LF, and RF are different (Appellant’s
Specification shows they are treated differently, as do both references, the
November 15, 2018 declaration of Felix Gow and the Appendix to the
declaration). However, this is moot as contrary to Appellant’s arguments we
concur with the Examiner that Uh teaches a repeater which includes an RF
transceiver that receives sensor data transmitted by RF and retransmits the
data to the central unit by RF. Uh paragraph 59 states that the RF
Appeal 2019-002384
Application 14/996,506

4
transceiver unit item 121 (the RF transceiver of the tractor repeater)
transmits data to the monitoring unit through radio frequency band or
receives data transmitted by the sensor units. The reference does not teach
that the RF transceiver transmits/receives in any type of signal other than
RF. Further, it appears from Uh that LF transmission is only for
communication directed to the repeater units from the monitoring unit
(which is not discussed or precluded by the claims) and not for
communication from the sensor units or to the central unit as claimed (see
paragraph 60 and Figure 24 which show that the central unit is the only unit
that has a LF transmitter and the repeaters only have LF receivers). Thus,
Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
With respect to the second issue, Appellant argues that claim 1 recites
each of the RF repeaters is dedicated to an individual wheel and that each
RF repeater receives sensor data and retransmits the data to a central unit by
RF and that it is not obvious to combine Guan and Uh in this manner.
Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant argues that Uh teaches multiple sensors
associated with a single repeater and this does not teach an individual
repeater for each wheel. Appeal Br. 12. Further, Appellant argues that
Guan teaches a repeater for each wheel that receives an RF signal from a
control unit and transmits a LF signal to the sensor, but the repeater does not
receive RF signals from the sensor and retransmit them to the central control
unit. Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant argues that incorporating the repeaters of
Guan into the system of Uh results in a system that would not function as the
repeaters in Guan do not provide communication back to the central unit.
Appeal Br. 13. Further, Appellant’s argue that the Examiner’s rationale to
Appeal 2019-002384
Application 14/996,506

5
combine the references, to eliminate wire cabling, is insufficient as Uh
already includes wireless communication between units. Appeal Br. 13;
Reply Br. 9.
Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue have persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. The Examiner’s response
to these arguments in the Answer is incomplete, and does not address the
rationale to combine argument. Answer 15. In the Final Action, the
Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Uh and Guan states:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of filing application to incorporate the Infant warmer
open bed of Guan into Uh in order to introduce a repeater
module installed at a position close to each individual tire, e.g.,
the tire’s wheel base to eliminate the wire cabling at the vehicle
level, wirelessly connecting the LF antenna at the wheel base to
the central receiver unit.
Final Act. 5. We do not consider this to be a sufficiently reasoned rationale.
Initially, we note that the recitation of an “Infant warmer open bed” appears
to be a non sequitur. Further, as argued by Appellant, Uh teaches that the
repeaters communicate with the control unit and sensors wirelessly, thus the
rationale to eliminate wire cabling does not seem to be related to an issue in
Uh. We further note that the repeaters in Uh are performing two way
communication between the control unit and the sensor units, whereas Guan
teaches the repeaters are only used to communicate one direction from the
control unit to the sensors. Thus, without further evidence, findings or
rationale from the Examiner, the combination is not just the substitution of
known elements. As such, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection as the Examiner has not
Appeal 2019-002384
Application 14/996,506

6
presented a reasoned rationale to show the skilled artisan would combine the
references.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–15,
17–23
103 Uh, Guan 1, 3–15,
17–23

REVERSED