Ex Parte Bares et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

11186666 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM HENRY BARES, NOAH DANIEL PALEY, and
LAUREN MARIE SCHLICHT
____________________

Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG,
and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-45 and 48-51. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) system and method including a reader and a RFID tag having an
integrated circuit (IC) chip; wherein, the reader is enabled to send an
activation code having a mask field and a length field that specifies the
length of the mask field (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
Claim 1 and 38 are exemplary:
1. A method for activating a device, comprising:

listening for an activate code;

receiving the activate code, the activate code having a length
field and a mask field, the mask field including a mask
value, the length field specifying a length of the mask
field to a final bit of the mask value;

comparing the length field to a stored length value for
determining whether the length field meets a predefined
criterion;

comparing the mask value in the mask field to a stored
activate value if the length field meets the predefined
criterion; and

activating additional circuitry if the mask value matches the
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

3
stored activate value.

38. A method for selectively activating a subset of a plurality
of devices, comprising transmitting an activate code
having a length field and a mask field, wherein the length
field dictates which of the plurality of devices process the
mask field.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
DeLuca US 5,089,813 Feb. 18, 1992
Orthmann US 5,489,908 Feb. 06, 1996
Tsui US 6,441,719 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Becker US 2004/0046642 A1 Mar. 11, 2004

Claims 38-41, 43, 44, 48, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Becker.
Claims 1, 3, 5-16, 18, 21-33, 35, 42, 49, and 50 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Becker in view of DeLuca.
Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Becker in view of DeLuca and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553
(CCPA 1975).
Claims 17, 19, 20, 34, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Becker in view of DeLuca and Tsui.
Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Becker in view of DeLuca and Orthmann.

Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

4
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that:
1. Becker teaches “an activate code having a length field and a mask
field, wherein the length field dictates which of the plurality of devices
process the mask field” (claim 38, emphasis added);
2. Becker teaches “only a subset of the devices analyze a particular
one of the activate codes based upon a variable size of the code” (claim 39,
emphasis added);
3. Becker teaches “whether the subset of the devices analyzes a
particular one of the activate codes is further dependent upon a position of a
mask field in the activate code” (claim 40, emphasis added);
4. Becker teaches “receiving an activate code having an address field
and a mask field, wherein the mask field has a mask value, wherein the
address field indicates a start position of the mask value in the mask field”
(claim 41, emphasis added);
5. Becker teaches “wherein a first subset of the devices are responsive
to an activate command of a first length, wherein a second subset of the
devices are responsive to an activate command of a second length” (claim
43, emphasis added);
6. Becker teaches “an interrupt circuit for determining whether an
interrupt period of a received signal matches a predetermined plurality of
values or falls within a predetermined range, the interrupt circuit outputting
an interrupt signal if the interrupt period matches the predetermined value or
falls within the predetermined range” (claim 44, emphasis added);
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

5
7. Becker teaches “comparing the length field to a stored length
value” and “comparing the mask value of the mask field to a stored activate
value if the length field meets the predefined criteria” (claim 48, emphasis
added);
8. the combination of Becker and DeLuca teaches or would have
suggested “receiving the activate code, the activate code having a length
field and a mask field, the mask field including a mask value, the length field
specifying a length of the mask field to a final bit of the mask value” (claim
1, emphasis added);
9. the combination of Becker and DeLuca in view of In re Kuhle
teaches or would have suggested “wherein the predefined criterion is that a
value of the length field is greater than the stored length value” (claim 2,
emphasis added); and
10. the combination of Becker, DeLuca, and Tsui teaches or would
have suggested “changing the stored activate value for use in a subsequent
communication” (claim 17, emphasis added) and “wherein the at least one of
the fields of the activate code is programmable, wherein authorization is
required prior to programming the at least one of the fields” (claim 19,
emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Becker
1. Becker discloses an RFID system having a RFID reader that
sends out an interrogation signal having three fields: (1) indicating that the
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

6
signal is an interrogation signal, (2) indicating that the signal contains a
group address, and (3) the group address (¶¶ [0025] and [0057]).
2. An example includes a twelve bit identifier for the interrogation
signal having a group address is 1110001110xxx; wherein, “x” is a bit in the
tag identifier of any value (a “don’t care” bit) and the RFID tags (141-14n)
having 111000110 for the first nine bits of their identifiers will respond to
the interrogation signal (¶ [0057]).
3. The RFID tag 141 includes a memory 38 coupled to the
microprocessor 36; wherein, the memory 38 stores the unique identifier of
the RFID tag 141 that can be read by the tag reader 12 (¶ [0033]).
4. The tag determines whether there is a group address within the
interrogation signal and compares the identifier to one stored on the tag in
memory to determine if there is a match (Fig. 11, steps 202, 204, and 212;
¶¶ [0033] and [0069]).
DeLuca
5. DeLuca discloses a signal having a synchronization field, a
boundary signal B field, an address field and a data field; wherein, the
boundary signal B field indicates how many codewords are in the address
field (col. 5, ll. 31-42).
6. One example includes the boundary signal having a value of
seven indicating that the address field contained seven codewords; wherein,
the boundary signal could be contained within four of the twenty-one bits of
the first codeword, thereby providing for up to sixteen codewords in the
address field (Figs. 2 and 4C; col. 5, ll. 40-54).

Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

7
Tsui
7. Tsui discloses, upon activation of each peripheral device, a
unique identification code and an associated variable security (or rolling)
code are transmitted from the device to the security console 20 and stored in
memory; wherein, the rolling code continuously changes to a random
number and the unique identification code is verified prior to the rolling
code (col. 3, ll. 53-58).
8. The initial rolling code and subsequent variations of the rolling
code are generated by software installed in memory of the peripheral device
in accordance with a predetermined arithmetic equation (col. 6, ll. 54-64).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 38
Appellants contend that “Becker does not teach a length field and a
mask field” (App. Br. 12); wherein, the “length field … dictates the length
of the mask field” (App. Br. 13). Appellants contend further that,
“[a]lthough Becker may describe using a group address to select which
RFID tags respond to an interrogation signal, Becker does not describe
transmitting a mask field for the tag to process if the group address field
matches one stored in the tag” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that Becker discloses the “length field
can be [the] group address field for tags, and the mask field will be the mask
bits” (Ans. 4); wherein, “the don’t care bits X … are mask bits” (Ans. 15 ).
We note that Appellants’ argument that Becker does not disclose a
length field which dictates the length of the mask field is not commensurate
in scope with the specific language of claim 38 (App. Br. 13). In particular,
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

8
claim 38 does not recite such “a length field which dictates the length of the
mask field” (App. Br. 13) as Appellants argue. Similarly, claim 38 does not
recite such “transmitting a mask field for the tag to process if the group
address field matches one stored in the tag” as Appellants argue (id.).
Becker discloses an RFID system having a RFID reader that sends out
an interrogation signal having three fields; wherein, one includes a group
address that may contain several “don’t care” bits that mask the group
address such that a subset of RFID tags respond to the signal that match the
“unmasked” bits (FF 1 and 2). One example discloses a twelve bit identifier
having a group address is 1110001110xxx; wherein, all of the RFID tags
(141-14n) having 111000110 for the first nine bits of their identifiers will
respond to the interrogation signal (FF 2). We find that the group address
field comprises the length field that dictates which of the RFID tags will
process the mask field, since the RFID tags matching the unmasked bits
respond to the interrogation signal which includes the mask field bits. That
is, we find that “transmitting an activate code having a length field and a
mask field, wherein the length field dictates which of the plurality of devices
process the mask field” reads on Becker’s interrogation signal that includes
the group address having “don’t care” bits.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 38 over Becker.
Claim 39
Appellants contend that “Becker does not disclose using code length
to determine anything” (App. Br. 13) and that Becker “does not disclose
varying a length of the overall code” (App. Br. 14).
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

9
However, the Examiner finds that Becker discloses that “the
interrogator is capable of reading variable size code addressing” because
“the tag response back [is] … based on the current position in the hop
sequence [which is] variable” (Ans. 15-16).
We note that Appellants’ argument that Becker does not “determin[e]
code length” (App. Br. 13) or that Becker does not disclose “varying a
length of the overall code” (id.) is not commensurate in scope with the
specific language of claim 39.
We find that Becker’s interrogation signals (FF 1-2) comprise the
activation codes or unmasked bits that enable a subset of the RFID tags to
analyze the activation codes wherein the number of “unmasked bits” is
variable since Becker does not disclose that the number of “don’t care” bits
is fixed. That is, we find that “transmitting several activate codes to a
plurality of remote devices, wherein only a subset of the devices analyze a
particular one of the activate codes based upon a variable size of the code”
reads on Becker’s interrogation signal that includes the group address having
“don’t care” bits.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 over Becker.
Claim 40
Appellants contend that “Becker does not disclose a variable length
field” which “can vary the length of the mask field” or “analyzing the
position of a mask field prior to analyzing an activate code” (App. Br. 14).
However, the Examiner finds that the Appellants’ argument is “not
persuasive because [Appellants are] actually claiming that analyzing the
activate codes depend on a position of a mask field” (Ans. 15-16).
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

10
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, claim 40 does not recite such “a
variable length field … which can vary the length of the mask field” or
“analyzing the position of a mask field prior to analyzing an activate code”
(App. Br. 14).
We find that Becker’s interrogation signals (FF 1-2) comprise the
activation codes or unmasked bits that enable a subset of the RFID tags to
analyze the activation codes which is based on the position of the “don’t
care” bits in the group address. That is, we find that “wherein whether the
subset of the devices analyzes a particular one of the activate codes is further
dependent upon a position of a mask field in the activate code” (claim 40)
reads on Becker’s interrogation signal that includes the group address having
“don’t care” bits.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 40 over Becker.
Claims 41 and 51
Appellants provide similar arguments with respect to independent
claims 41 and 51 (App. Br. 15-16 and 18-19). Accordingly, we select claim
41 as being representative of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants contend that “Becker does not disclose an address field
and a mask field” because “the device must know prior to the signal being
received where to look for identifier bits, and it always looks in the same
place each time a signal is received” (App. Br. 15).
However, the Examiner finds that “[a]t no point [does] Becker limit[]
the number of “X” don’t care bits in the address scheme” (Ans. 17).
We find that Becker’s interrogation signals (FF 1-2) comprise an
address field and a mask field; wherein, the group address is the address
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

11
field and the mask field are the masked bits designated by the “don’t care”
bits and the starting position is indicated by an “x” within the group address.
That is, we find that “receiving an activate code having an address field and
a mask field, wherein the mask field has a mask value, wherein the address
field indicates a start position of the mask value in the mask field” (claim
41) reads on Becker’s interrogation signal that includes the group address
having “don’t care” bits.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 41 and 51 over Becker.
Claim 43
Appellants contend that “even though many x bits may be present in a
tag identifier, the overall tag identifier length is the same regardless of the
tag identifier, it will just have anywhere from zero to all x bits” (App. Br.
16).
However, the Examiner finds that “[a]lthough Becker suggests a 12
bit address scheme, at no point [does] Becker state[] that the tags address
shall be only 12 bit[s] long” (Ans. 17). The Examiner finds further that the
“activate command could just be the address field or the mask field, and
both of them can vary in length per Becker” (id.).
We find that Becker’s interrogation signals (FF 1-2) comprise an
address field (group address) and a mask field (“don’t care” bits); wherein,
the group address is any length. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Becker does not limit the address scheme to a particular length and that the
activate command may comprise either the address field or the mask field
(Ans. 17). That is, we find that “wherein a first subset of the devices are
responsive to an activate command of a first length, wherein a second subset
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

12
of the devices are responsive to an activate command of a second length”
(claim 43) reads on Becker’s interrogation signal having an unmasked
portion of a first length and a masked portion of a second length.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 43 over Becker.
Claim 44
Appellants contend that “[a]lthough Becker discloses a RFID tag with
a microprocessor, there is no disclosure of a microcontroller or
microprocessor with an interrupt circuit contained therein” (App. Br. 16).
Appellants argue that “it was not notorious and well known in the art of
RFID tags at the time of invention to include an interrupt circuit for
determining whether an interrupt period of a received signal matches a
predetermined plurality of values or falls within a predetermined range to the
extent suggested by the Examiner” (App. Br. 17).
However, the Examiner finds that Appellants’ argument is “not
persuasive because there was not an official notice taken by the [E]xaminer
rather it was determined, as an ordinary skilled artisan, that a microcontroller
inherently comprises an interrupt circuit” (Ans. 17). The Examiner finds
further that the “an ordinary skilled artisan in the field of electrical and
computer engineering, who has the ordinary knowledge and skills of
manufacturing a microcontroller, knows that more than 34 years ago
Motorola® and others had develop microprocessors with an interrupt circuit,
and therefore, every processor has an interrupt circuit to run the application
that the processor is designed to run when certain condition(s) are true”
(Ans. 18).
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

13
We note claim 44 does not recite such “tags may determine the hop
sequence so as to conserve power” as Appellants argue (App. Br. 16-17).
Becker discloses that the RFID tag includes a memory coupled to a
microprocessor (FF 3). We find no error in the Examiner’s position that a
microprocessor or a microcontroller inherently includes an interrupt circuit
(Ans. 18). That is, we find that a circuit for selectively generating an
activate signal, comprising “an interrupt circuit,” reads on Becker’s
microprocessor.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 44 over Becker.
Claim 48
Appellants contend that “Becker fails to disclose comparing a length
field to a stored length value or comparing a received mask field to a stored
mask value” (App. Br. 18).
However, the Examiner finds that “in step 202 [of Fig. 11, the tag]
determines if the address being transmitted is a group address; and therefore
the tag compares that information and response adequately” (Ans. 18).
In Becker, after the tag determines whether a group address is present
in the interrogation signal, the tag compares the identifier to an address
stored in the tag’s memory (FF 4). We find that, when the tag receives the
interrogation signal, it receives the length field (identifier) and compares it
to an identifier stored on the tag to see if it is a group address. We find
further that, if the tag does make a determination that the signal includes a
group address, it compares the group address to a value stored in the tag
memory. That is, we find that “comparing the length field to a stored length
value” and “comparing the mask value of the mask field to a stored activate
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

14
value if the length field meets the predefined criteria” (claim 48) reads on
Becker’s tag that processes the group address having a masked and an
unmasked portion.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 48 over Becker.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 9-16, 18, 21-33, 35, 42, 49, and 50
Appellants do not provide separate arguments with respect to
independent claims 1 and 13 (App. Br. 19-20). Further, Appellants provide
a similar argument with respect to independent claim 21 and dependent
claims 42, 49, and 50 (App. Br. 20-22). Appellants do not provide
arguments with respect to dependent claims 3, 5-12, 14-16, 18, 22-33, and
35. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as being representative of the claims.
Appellants contend that “claim 1 requires that the length field which
specifies a length of the mask field to a final bit of the mask value;” yet,
“DeLuca can only direct toward the starting point of a data packet” (App.
Br. 20).
However, the Examiner finds that given an example where there is
one code word, Becker discloses that “the final bit will be X, and the
boundary signal B [of DeLuca] defines the signal to have one code word that
define[s] the final bit of the address” (Ans. 19).
We find Becker’s group address (FF 1-2) comprises the length field
and the “don’t care” bits comprises the mask field. That is, we find that
“receiving the activate code, the activate code having a length field and a
mask field, the mask field including a mask value” (claim 1) reads on
Becker’s interrogation signal having a group address.
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

15
In addition, DeLuca discloses a signal having a boundary signal B
field indicates how many codewords are in an address field (FF 5 and 6).
We find that the boundary signal comprises the value of the number of
codewords within an address having a given length thereby indicating the
number of bits for each codeword (including a final bit). That is, we find
that “the length field specifying a length of the mask field to a final bit of the
mask value” (claim 1) reads on DeLuca’s boundary signal.
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Becker and DeLuca at
least suggests providing “receiving the activate code, the activate code
having a length field and a mask field, the mask field including a mask
value, the length field specifying a length of the mask field to a final bit of
the mask value,” as specifically required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1; independent claims 13 and 21 falling
therewith; and claims 3, 5-12, 14-16, 18, 22-33, 35, 42, 49, and 50
depending respectively from claims 1, 21, 41, and 48, which have been
grouped therewith, over Becker in view of DeLuca.
Claims 2 and 4
Appellants contend that “Becker and DeLuca do not teach or suggest
greater than or not greater than comparison for values when determining if
the activate code is correct” (App. Br. 22-23).
Although the Examiner finds that “all three conditions cannot be true
in one design” (Ans. 19), we find no adequate showing by the Examiner that
the combined teachings of Becker and DeLuca would have suggested “[t]he
predefined criterion is that a value of the length field can be either greater
than[or] less … to the stored length value” (id.).
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

16
Since claim 2 requires that the length field be “greater than” the
stored value while claim 4 requires that the length field be “less than” the
value, we are constrained to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2
and claims 4, depending from claim 1 which have been grouped therewith,
over Becker in view of DeLuca.
Claims 17 and 34
Appellants provide similar arguments with respect to claims 17 and 34
(App. Br. 23-25). Accordingly, we select claim 17 as being representative
of these claims.
Appellants contend that “Tsui requires that the remote device transmit
the stored rolling code back to the security console” (App. Br. 24).
However, the Examiner finds that Appellants’ recitation to the feature
in Tsui “is beyond the scope of the claimed limitation” (Ans. 20), since the
Examiner relies upon Tsui to disclose “the security console transmits a
rolling code, a variable device ID code, in a subsequent communication”
(Ans. 12).
Tsui discloses a unique identification code and an associated variable
security (or rolling) code is transmitted from a device to the security console
(FF 7). We find that the rolling security code comprises changing the code
value for subsequent use since a rolling security code continuously changes
to a random number. That is, we find that “changing the stored activate
value for use in a subsequent communication” (claim 17) reads on Tsui’s
variable security code.
Accordingly, find that the combination of Becker, DeLuca, and Tsui
at least suggests providing “changing the stored activate value for use in a
subsequent communication,” as specifically required by claim 17.
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

17
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 and claim 34 depending from claim 21,
which have been grouped therewith, over Becker in view of DeLuca and
Tsui.
Claims 19 and 36
Appellants provide similar arguments with respect to claims 19 and 36
(App. Br. 25-26). Accordingly, we select claim 19 as being representative
of these claims.
Appellants contend that Tsui does not disclose that the “activate code
is programmable, wherein authorization is required prior to programming
the at least one of the fields” (claim 19), since “[t]he security console and
remote devices [of Tsui] will carry out the equation and change the rolling
code as is dictated by the software running on each device, regardless of
whether authorization has been granted, since there is never any check for
authorization” (App. Br. 25).
However, the Examiner finds that “[a]n ordinary skilled artisan would
understand that the claimed subject matter is directed towards the rolling
code topology, where the previous code has to match in order to establish a
subsequent code, and Tsui teaches this limitation” (Ans. 20).
Tsui discloses that the rolling code and subsequent variations of the
rolling code are generated by software (FF 7-8). We find that the rolling
security code is programmable and that authorization is required prior to
programming since the unique identification code is first verified prior to the
rolling code entry. That is, we find that “wherein the at least one of the
fields of the activate code is programmable, wherein authorization is
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

18
required prior to programming the at least one of the fields” (claim 19) reads
on Tsui’s variable security code.
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Becker, DeLuca, and
Tsui at least suggests providing “wherein the at least one of the fields of the
activate code is programmable, wherein authorization is required prior to
programming the at least one of the fields,” as specifically required by claim
19.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Becker
in view of DeLuca and Tsui; and claims 36, depending from claim 21 which
have been grouped therewith.
Claim 20, 37, and 45
Appellants argue that claims 20, 37, and 45 are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claims 19, 21 and
44 respectively, from which they depend (App. Br. 26-27).
As noted supra, however, we find no deficiencies in the combined
teachings of Becker, DeLuca and Tsui with respect to claim 19; the
combined teachings of Becker and DeLuca with respect to claim 21; and
Becker with respect to claim 44. We therefore also affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 20, 37, and 45 over Becker in view of DeLuca and Tsui
or DeLuca and Orthmann.
Appeal 2010-001931
Application 11/186,666

19
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 38-41, 43, 44, 48, and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 1, 3, 5-37, 42, 45, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART

peb