AMTECH SYSTEMS, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021000766 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 16/276,820 02/15/2019 Kelly Gravelle 0080-1062CON3 4969 142667 7590 03/02/2022 SNYDER, CLARK, LESCH & CHUNG, LLP 205 Van Buren Street Suite 110 HERNDON, VA 20170 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): docket@snyderllp.com pto@snyderLLP.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KELLY GRAVELLE, MICHAEL MELVILLE, and KARL KELSEY Appeal 2021-000766 Application 16/276,820 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Transcore LLP. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000766 Application 16/276,820 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an RFID system with time slot interleaving. Spec. Title. Claims 1 and 10 are independent, and each recite the disputed limitation at issue in this appeal. Claim 1, is reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized: 1. An RFID interrogation system comprising: a first RFID interrogator; a first antenna; and a second antenna, wherein the first and second antennas are located to direct signals to and to receive signals from respective first and second interrogation zones, wherein a first interrogation signal from the first RFID interrogator is transmitted to the first antenna, wherein a first acquire window for receiving a signal from a first RFID transponder is opened after said first interrogation signal; wherein a second interrogation signal from the first RFID interrogator or from a second RFID interrogator is transmitted to the second antenna, wherein the second interrogation signal is transmitted after the first interrogation signal, wherein a second acquire window for receiving a signal from a second RFID transponder is opened after the second interrogation signal, and wherein said second interrogation signal is transmitted prior to said first acquire window being opened. Corrected Appeal Br. 3 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-000766 Application 16/276,820 3 REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on these references: Name Reference Date MacLellan US 6,177,861 B1 Jan. 23, 2001 Terrier US 6,219,613 B1 Apr. 17, 2001 Kohli US 8,760,316 B2 June 24, 2014 REJECTIONS3 Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Terrier, MacLellan, and Kohli. Final Act. 3. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding Kohli teaches or suggest the disputed limitation “wherein said second interrogation signal is transmitted prior to said first acquire window being opened,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies mostly on Terrier, but finds that Terrier does not teach or suggest the last two limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds MacLellan teaches the second-to-last limitation of “a second acquire window for receiving a signal from a second RFID transponder is opened after the second interrogation signal.” Final Act. 6-7. Although not acquiescing, Appellant does not challenge this finding. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner further finds Kohli teaches the final limitation (the disputed limitation) of “wherein said second interrogation 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only. 3 A double patenting rejection was withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-000766 Application 16/276,820 4 signal is transmitted prior to said first acquire window being open.” Final Act. 7-9. More specifically, the Examiner determines that Kohli describes an open road toll communication system that includes a timing diagram depicting “an exemplary timing sequence of communication operations for superframe 330, the superframe is comprised of a series of frames 340, 342, 344.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner further determines each frame corresponds to communication on a different antenna of an automatic vehicle identification system, and each frame includes a trigger signal that is transmitted by the AVI reader to a transponder using its corresponding antenna. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner explains that the embodiment depicted in Figure 2 shows that “each of the frames 340, 342, 344 are of the same duration and are of sufficient duration to permit reading (i.e. acquiring windows being opened), programming, and verifying operations to occur during each [respective] frame.” Final Act. 8 (bracketed word added). The Examiner further determines the transponders are configured to transmit a memory content signal (318) after receiving each trigger signal (312). The Examiner finds that these memory content signals (318b and 318c) correspond to a first acquiring window and a second acquiring window. Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that the trigger signals (312a and 312b), which correspond to the first and second interrogation signals are each transmitted prior to the AVI reader receiving the memory content signals, which correspond to the recited first and second acquiring window. As such, the Examiner finds that the second interrogation signal (the second trigger signal) is transmitted prior to the first acquiring window (the memory content signal) being opened. Appeal 2021-000766 Application 16/276,820 5 Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because “[t]he Final Office Action incorrectly presumes that memory content signals 318b and 318c are received during a first acquire window.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends the “the acquire window associated with the trigger signal 312a, closes at the end of frame 340, before the second trigger signal 312b.” Appeal Br. 7-8. Therefore, according to Appellant, “Kohli does not disclose or suggest that there is an acquire window for trigger signal 318a extending as far as trigger signal 318b” and “[b]ecause the first acquire window . . . ends before the second trigger signal 312b, it is clear that the second trigger signal 312b does not occur before the opening of the first acquire window.” Appeal Br. 8. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds the memory content signals 318b and 318c to be indicative of an acquire window. Although that may be correct, it does not follow that the absence of a memory content signal in a given frame means that no acquire window is present. We agree with Appellant that in frame 340, an acquire window is present that closes at the end of frame 340. In that particular situation, Kohli explains that no memory content signal is shown because there is “no transponder in the vicinity of the reader’s transmission range that has received the trigger signal.” Kohli col. 7, ll. 30-32. We agree with Appellant that if a transponder were in the vicinity of the reader’s transmission range in frame 340, then a memory content signal 318a would have been received and shown during the acquire window present in frame 340. We agree with Appellant that the first acquire window in Kohli’s Figure 2, although not indicated by a memory content signal 318a due to absence of a responding transponder, closes at the end of frame 340, which is prior to the second Appeal 2021-000766 Application 16/276,820 6 trigger signal. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has erred in finding Kohli teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reason we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, which recites the same limitation. The remaining claims are dependent, and stand with their respective independent claims. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-18 103 Terrier, MacLellan, Kohli 1-18 REVERSED