Ex Parte 6486780 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2014

95001344 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

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.
95/001,344 04/20/2010 6486780 2917.002REX0 6327
7590 03/28/2014
PETER L. OLSON
OFFICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSEL
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
P.O. BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

ENVISIONWARE, INC.
Requester

v.

3M COMPANY and 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES
COMPANY
Patent Owner and Appellant
________________

Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1
Technology Center 3900
________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JENNIFER L.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-47,
50-55, and 57-74. PO App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 315.
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

2
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-24, 28, 29, 34, 51, 54, 55, 57, 63, 66, and 69 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kumar
1
and Bowers.
2

Ans. 5; ACP
3
4-13.
Claims 9, 13, 14, 25-27, 30-33, 35-47, 50, 52, 53, 58, 60-62, 64, 65,
67, 68, 71, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kumar, Bowers, and Kikinis.
4
Ans. 5; ACP 15-29.
Claims 13, 14, 26, 27, 30-33, 35-37, 52, 53, 60, 68, and 71 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kumar, Bowers, and
Ruppert.
5
Ans. 5; ACP 29-34.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 22, 23, 29, 34, 57, 63, and 66 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kumar and Cesar.
6
Ans.
5; ACP 35-42.
Claims 3-6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18-21, 24-27, 30-33, 35-45, 47, 50, 58, 60-
62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kumar, Cesar, and Kikinis. Ans. 5-6; ACP 42-58.
Claims 1-7, 11-22, 26-37, 51-55, 57, 60, 63, 66, and 68-71 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bowers and Ruppert.
Ans. 6; ACP 58-72.

1
Kumar, 5,521,369, May 28, 1996.
2
Bowers et al., 5,963,134, Oct. 5, 1999.
3
The Action Closing Prosecution (“ACP”) was mailed August 5, 2011; the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 4, 2013, incorporated portions of the
ACP by reference.
4
Kikinis et al., 5,600,800, Feb. 4, 1997.
5
Ruppert et al., 5,640,002, June 17, 1997.
6
Cesar et al., 5,673,037, Sept. 30, 1997.
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

3
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kumar,
Bowers, and Schultz.
7
Ans. 6; ACP 81-82.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kumar,
Cesar, and Schultz. Ans. 6; ACP 82.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Bowers, Ruppert, and Schultz. Ans. 6; ACP 82-83.
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kumar,
Bowers, Kikinis, and Schultz. Ans. 6; ACP 84-86.
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kumar,
Cesar, Kikinis, and Schultz. Ans. 6; ACP 87-89.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request by EnvisionWare, Inc.
for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 6,486,780, titled
“Applications for Radio Frequency Identification Systems” (the ’780
patent). The ’780 patent was involved in litigation that has been settled. PO
App. Br. 2 The ’780 patent describes “RFID devices, including handheld
RFID devices, and applications for such devices.” Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A hand-held RFID device, comprising as an integrated unit:
(a) a computer;
(b) an antenna to transmit commands between an RFID tag and an
RFID reader;

7
Schultz et al., 5,280,159, Jan. 18, 1994.
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

4
(c) an RFID reader for reading information from multiple RFID tags
substantially simultaneously; and
(d) a display.

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-8, 10-12, 15-24, 28, 29, 34, 51,
54, 55, 57, 63, 66, AND 69 OVER KUMAR AND BOWERS; THE OBVIOUSNESS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 9, 13, 14, 25-27, 30-33, 35-47, 50, 52, 53, 58, 60-62,
64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, AND 74 OVER KUMAR, BOWERS, AND KIKINIS; THE
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 59 OVER KUMAR, BOWERS, AND
SCHULTZ; AND THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 72 OVER KUMAR,
BOWERS, KIKINIS, AND SCHULTZ
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (PO App. Br. and PO Reb. Br.) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions as to the obviousness
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-24, 28, 29, 34, 51, 54, 55, 57, 63, 66, and
69 over Kumar and Bowers; the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 13, 14,
25-27, 30-33, 35-47, 50, 52, 53, 58, 60-62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, and 74
over Kumar, Bowers, and Kikinis; the obviousness rejection of claim 59
over Kumar, Bowers, and Schultz; and the obviousness rejection of claim 72
over Kumar, Bowers, Kikinis, and Schultz.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

5
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12,
15-24, 28, 29, 34, 51, 54, 55, 57, 63, 66, and 69 over Kumar and Bowers; the
obviousness rejection of claims 9, 13, 14, 25-27, 30-33, 35-47, 50, 52, 53,
58, 60-62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, and 74 over Kumar, Bowers, and Kikinis;
the obviousness rejection of claim 59 over Kumar, Bowers, and Schultz; and
the obviousness rejection of claim 72 over Kumar, Bowers, Kikinis, and
Schultz.
We highlight the following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1, 17, 51, 55, 63, 67, 69
Regarding claims 1, 17, 63, and 69, Appellant makes the following
principal arguments:
(i) “There is no teaching of Bowers et al. that would motivate one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device
of Kumar to include the antenna of Bowers et al.” PO App. Br. 8.
(ii) “Kumar specifically teaches away from the inclusion of an
antenna similar to the antenna of Bowers’ et al. in the Kumar device.” PO
App. Br. 8. “The basic construction of the Kumar device presents size-
related constraints. Because the peripheral device is designed to be
enveloped by the host computer, the device is limited to the size of the host
computer.” PO App. Br. 9.
(iii) “Such a modification, limiting the ability of the Bowers’ et al.
device to read only a single RFID tag at a time would render Bowers et al.
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

6
unsuitable for its intended purpose of facilitating efficient inventory and
circulation management for libraries.” PO App. Br. 9-10.
Regarding claims 63 and 67, Appellant further argues (iv) Kumar
“describes two detachable units, instead of a single integrated unit.” PO
App. Br. 10.
Regarding claims 51, 55, and 69, Appellant further argues (v) “the
Bowers et al. device does not ‘record the identification information for each
of the plurality of tagged items’ as required. RFID scanner 42 collects or
detects data, but the data is stored in portable computer 122, not in the
handheld RFID scanner 42.” PO App. Br. 11.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (i), the Examiner explained
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to include an antenna and an RFID writer as taught by
Bowers in the system disclosed by Kumar in order to
advantageously provide power to passive RFID tags (Bowers,
column 9, lines 1-4) and rewrite information on the tags (e.g., to
indicate the status of the tagged item; Bowers; column 12, lines
40-43).
ACP. 6. We agree with the Examiner, and Appellant has not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s explanation.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (ii), the Examiner explains Kumar
discloses that the host computer and card slot may take different forms.
Ans. 7-8 (citing Kumar, col. 4, ll. 47-66; col. 5, ll. 9-12).
But while an alternative may be inferior to or less desirable than
another, that alone is insufficient to teach away from the inferior alternative
unless the disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages that
alternative. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200-01 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

7
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (iii), we find this argument
unpersuasive because we agree with the Examiner that “Kumar already
discloses an RFID reader in a small space. Kumar already discloses an RFID
reader in a standard card slot, and Bowers is relied upon to teach a
modification of such an RFID reader that would enable the reader to read
multiple tags simultaneously.” Ans. 7.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (iv), we agree with the Examiner
that “Kumar discloses ‘a single integrated unit’ at least in the sense that
Kumar discloses an RFID reader 33 integrally connectable to a computer 2
and a display 4 to form a single unit (i.e., RFID reader 33 is attached to the
computer 2 via slot 6).” Ans. 8.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (v), we agree with the Examiner
that “Bowers is relied upon for, among other things, teaching the recording
of information while Kumar discloses an integrated device.” Ans. 10.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(citations omitted).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error.

Claims 8 and 23
Appellant argues
[n]o reasonable construction of Kumar would interpret Kumar’s
host computer as somehow being “detachable” as understood in
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

8
the context of claims 8 and 23. As set forth throughout this inter
partes reexamination, Kumar’s host computer is not a
component that is detachable from any form of an integrated
unit, but rather the card peripheral device in Kumar is removed
from the host computer.
PO App. Br. 11.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we agree with the Examiner that
Kumar clearly discloses a detachable hand-held computer.
Kumar explicitly discloses that the hand-held computer (e.g., a
PDA; column 4, lines 57-60) may be detached from the scanner
hardware if scanning functions are no longer desired (column 5,
lines 5, lines 66-67; column 6, lines 1-5). Therefore, the PDA
disclosed by Kumar is “detachable,” i.e., capable of being
detached.
Ans. 10-11.

Claims 9 and 25
Appellant argues “there would be no reason why one of ordinary skill
would look to modify the Kumar PDA to include yet another power source
in view of the Kikinis PDA that itself has a single battery.” PO App. Br. 12.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner explained
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to provide separate power sources as taught by Kikinis in the
system described by Kumar in view of Bowers in order to
ensure that the scanning elements are adequately powered
without excessively draining power from the PDA’s battery.
ACP. 14-15. We agree with the Examiner, and Appellant has not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s explanation.

Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

9
Claims 14, 27, and 68
Appellant argues
Kikinis does not disclose immediately displaying information,
or even displaying information that is related to a tagged item,
both as recited in claims 68, 14 and 27. The Examiner has
provided no additional motivation for how a PHOSITA would
read the database-related disclosure of Kikinis and arrive at the
invention of claims 14, 27 and 68, each requiring something
entirely different.
PO App. Br. 13.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds “Kikinis further
teaches obtaining information from a tag and immediately displaying that
information on the display and displaying information stored within the
hand-held device that is related to a tagged item (column 18, lines 44-59).”
ACP 15. The Examiner explains “it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to display information from the tag and information
about the tagged item as taught by Kikinis in the RFID scanning system
described by Kumar in view of Bowers in order to advantageously inform
the user about the tagged items and enable the user to monitor an inventory
of items, particularly since Kumar already discloses a display.” ACP 15.
We agree with the Examiner, and are not persuaded of error. Notably,
Kikinis (col. 18, ll. 44-59) describes a mobile inventory management device
including a scanner, and displaying the database as inventories are collected.

Claims 15 and 28
Appellant argues “[i]f the Examiner relies on Bowers et al. for reading
multiple RFID tags substantially simultaneously, the Examiner cannot
combine that with a technically mutually exclusive configuration [of
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

10
scanning articles one by one] for identifying mislocated or misshelved
articles.” PO App. Br. 13; see also PO Reb. Br. 2.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner explains “that claims
15 and 28 simply recite ‘that the device is adapted to verify the order of
materials on a shelf’ and does not specifically recite that the RFID device
reads tags substantially simultaneously if it is being used to verify the order
of materials.” Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner, and are not persuaded
of error.

Claims 16 and 29
Appellant argues Bowers does not describe the hand-held RFID
device is programmed with specific information identifying certain items
that an operator wishes to locate. PO App. Br. 14.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner explains
Column 16, lines 11-25 of Bowers further describes how the
device “may signal the employee” upon detection of a book that
does not belong in the current area, i.e., when the specific
information in the database related to the books that are
supposed to be outside of the current area matches the identifier
of a book that has been detected in the current area.
Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner.

Claims 32, 36, 40, 59, 71, and 72
Regarding claims 32, 36, 40, 71, and 72, Appellant presents the
following principal arguments:
(i) “The very design of the Bowers et al. system teaches the
importance of transmitting information back to a central computer or
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

11
database separate from the RFID device so that an up-to-date set of
information that can be accessed by each of the interrogators.” PO App. Br.
15.
(ii) Kikinis does not teach or suggest displaying stored data in real-
time. PO App. Br. 15; see also PO App. Br. 17.
Regarding claim 40, Appellant further argues (iii) Kikinis does not
show information displayed on a user interface separate from the display;
and (iv) Kikinis does not disclose providing information in real time without
transmission back to a computer or database. PO App. Br. 17.
Regarding claims 59 and 72, Appellant further argues (v) “a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add a handle to the device
of Kumar as suggested by the Examiner.” PO App. Br. 17.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (i), the Examiner explains “Bowers
also discloses that the system includes fixed identification information such
as a book’s title and author (column 10, lines 35-40). Such fixed information
could be stored and immediately displayed.” Ans. 13. We agree with the
Examiner.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (ii), the Examiner explains
“Similarly, Kikinis teaches that data is displayed via I/O area 16 and
‘Alternatively to frequent data transmission, data may be stored. . . in
peripheral 100’ (column 18, lines 57-59). Thus, Kikinis teaches displaying
stored data in ‘real time.’” Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (iii) and (iv), the Examiner finds
Kikinis further teaches that the user interface provides
information in real time regarding the multiple RFID tags read
by the RFID reader, wherein the information in real time is
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

12
provided on the user interface without transmission back to a
computer or database separate from the RFID device (column
18, lines 53-59).
ACP 17. We are not persuaded of error.
We note that claim 40 depends from claim 39, which depends from
claim 38. Claim 38 recites “a user interface separate from the display.” The
Examiner relies on Kikinis’s keypad 96 and microphone 103 (Figure 17),
and speaker 19 (Figure 3) for teaching a user interface separate from the
display. ACP 17. Claim 40 further recites providing information without
transmission back to a computer or database separate from the RFID device,
and for this further recitation the Examiner relies on Kikinis’s (col. 18, ll.
53-59) database display as inventories are collected. Collectively, Kikinis,
Kumar, and Bowers teach all recited limitations of claim 40. See also
Bowers, col. 10, ll. 35-40 (fixed identification information such as a book’s
title and author, which could be stored and immediately displayed).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (v), the Examiner explains
“[a]lthough the other references such as Kumar disclose a hand-held device,
Schultz teaches providing a handle including a trigger on a hand-held device
to advantageously make one-handed operation of the device easier and more
comfortable.” Ans. 14. We agree with the Examiner, and are not persuaded
of Examiner error.

Claim 34
Appellant argues Kumar does not teach or suggest the recited touch-
screen display. PO App. Br. 16.
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

13
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds “Kumar
discloses a trigger (i.e., scanner activation button 34; column 5, lines 46-49)
and a touch-screen display (i.e., display screen 4; column 5, lines 3-6).”
ACP 10.
Kumar (col. 5, ll. 3-6) describes “[h]ost computer 2 generally includes
a housing 3 and a display screen 4. Display screen 4 may also include a
touch pad (not shown), positioned above display screen 4 such that screen 4
operates as an input device.”
We are not persuaded of Examiner error because screen 4 operating as
an input device describes the recited touch-screen display.

Claim 35
Appellant argues Kikinis’s “general reference to displaying and
manipulating a database does not teach or suggest that the information
displayed is at all related to RFID tags read by an RFID reader, or even that
the information is read in real time, both as required by claim 35.” PO App.
Br. 16.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds “Kikinis
teaches that the display provides information in real time regarding the RFID
tags or an RFID tagged item read by the device (column 18, lines 44-59).”
ACP 16. We agree with the Examiner, and are not persuaded of error.

Claim 37
Appellant argues “Kikinis does not teach, nor does Bowers et al.
teach, that information displayed in real time includes information stored
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

14
within the hand-held device that is related to the multiple RFID tags read by
the RFID reader as required.” PO App. Br. 16.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds
Kikinis teaches that the information in real time is provided on
the display without transmission back to a computer or database
separate from the RFID device and includes information stored
within the hand-held device that is related to the RFID tags read
by the RFID reader (e.g., Kikinis teaches “Alternatively to
frequent data transmission, data may be stored or [sic] auxiliary
option memory location in peripheral 100”; column 18, lines
57-59).
ACP 16. We agree with the Examiner, and are not persuaded of error.

Claim 39
Appellant argues Kikinis “does not teach any display of ‘information
in real time’ as required. Further, information displayed in open bay 147 is
in fact shown on the device display 16 of Kikinis, and therefore not provided
by a user interface separate from the display, also as required by claim 39.”
PO App. Br. 17.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds
Kikinis further teaches that the user interface provides
information in real time regarding the multiple RFID tags read
by the RFID reader, wherein the information in real time is
provided on the user interface without transmission back to a
computer or database separate from the RFID device (column
18, lines 53-59).
ACP 17. We are not persuaded of error.
We note that claim 39 depends from claim 38. Claim 38 recites “a
user interface separate from the display.” The Examiner relies on Kikinis’s
keypad 96 and microphone 103 (Figure 17), and speaker 19 (Figure 3) for
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

15
teaching a user interface separate from the display. ACP 17. Claim 39
further recites the user interface provides information in real time regarding
the multiple RFID tags read by the RFID reader, and for this further
recitation the Examiner relies on Kikinis’s (col. 18, ll. 53-59) database
display as inventories are collected. Collectively, Kikinis, Kumar, and
Bowers teach all recited limitations of claim 39. See also Bowers, col. 10, ll.
35-40 (fixed identification information such as a book’s title and author,
which could be stored and immediately displayed).

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 70 OVER BOWERS AND RUPPERT
Appellant argues Bowers does not teach or suggest the device is
programmed with specific information identifying certain items that an
operator wishes to locate, and identifiers of items read by the RFID device
are compared with the information identifying the certain items. PO App.
Br. 26.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner explains
[c]olumn 16, lines 11-25 of Bowers describes how the device
“may signal the employee” upon detection of a book that does
not belong in the current area, i.e., when the specific
information in the database related to the books that are
supposed to be outside of the current area matches the identifier
of a book that has been detected in the current area.
Ans. 19; see also Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 70 over
Bowers and Ruppert.

Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

16
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
Appellant argues various secondary considerations. See PO App. Br.
27-29.
In response, the Examiner explains that a nexus has not been shown
between claimed features and commercial success, and that Appellant does
not elaborate on any particular feature or claim limitation. See Ans. 19-21.
We agree with the Examiner, and remain unpersuaded of error.

THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Review of alternative prior art bases for rejection to claims, which
have already been determined to be appropriately rejected over the prior art,
is discretionary. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (not reaching rejections based on obviousness when claims already
rejected as anticipated). We exercise our discretion and decline to reach the
merits of the remaining rejections.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-47, 50-55, and 57-74 is
affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
This is a final decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking
judicial review of the decision must comply with the notice and service
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2. For judicial review of decisions arising
out of proceedings referenced in 37 C.F.R. § 90.1, the notice and service
Appeal 2014-001749
Reexamination Control 95/001,344
Patent 6,486,780 B1

17
requirements are governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1,
2012.

AFFIRMED

PATENT OWNER:

PETER L. OLSON
OFFICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSEL
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
P.O. BOX 33427
ST. PAUL MN 55133-3427

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN 7 FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEWYORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
lb