Ex Parte Becker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 13, 2009

10235899 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ROBERT C. BECKER and DAVID W. MEYERS
_____________

Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: January 13, 2009
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN C. MARTIN, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 23-34, 39, and 40. The remaining pending claims (i.e.,
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

2
claims 10-22 and 35-38) are either allowed or objected to for depending on
rejected claim 35. Final Action 10.1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. Appellants’ invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a tag that can be attached to an article
for storing information about the article. Specification 1:2-4.
Figure 1 is reproduced below.

1 The Final Action erroneously states at page 10 that “Claims 36-38
are directly dependent on claims 30 and 35.” Claims 36-38 each depend on
claim 35. See, e.g., the January 8, 2007, “Response to 11/15/06 Office
Action” at 7.
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

3
Figure 1 illustrates a tagging system in accordance with one
embodiment of the invention. Id at 7:4-5.
Tagging system 10 includes a long range reader 12, a short range
reader 14, and an RFID (radio frequency identification) tag 16. Id. at
7:13-15. The long range reader 12 includes an antenna 18, and the RFID tag
16 similarly includes an antenna 20. Id. at 7:15-17. The antennas 18 and 20
establish a long range RF link between the long range reader 12 and the
RFID tag 16 so that the long range reader 12 can remotely read the
identification stored in a memory of the RFID tag 16. Id. at 7:17-21. The
range of the long range reader 12 can be as high as several hundred feet. Id.
at 7:21-22.
A secure link 22 between the short range reader 14 and the RFID tag
16 permits the short range reader 14 to read information from the RFID tag
16 in a more secure manner. Id. at 8:1-4. That is, it may not be desirable for
the long range reader 12 to read certain information stored in the RFID tag
16 because long range RF communications can be intercepted by a
strategically placed surreptitious reader similar to the long range reader 12.
Id. at 8:4-8. The secure link 22 is shown in Figure 1 as a hard wire link
between the short range reader 14 and the RFID tag 16. Id. at 8:12-14.
Alternatively, the secure link 22 may be a limited range magnetic link such
as those
provided by contact-free smart cards. Id. at 8:17-19. As a still further
alternative, the secure link 22 may be a very limited range RF link. Id. at
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

4
8:19-21. The expected maximum range of the short range reader 14 over the
secure link 22 may, for example, be less than 2 feet, and can be between 6
inches and 18 inches. Id. at 8:22-25.
Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 shows an embodiment of RFID tag 16. Id. at 9:1-2. The tag
includes an RF transceiver 30, antenna 20, a microprocessor 32, a battery 38,
an interface 34 for secure link 22, and a memory 36. Id. at 9:3-22.
Memory 36 stores the ID of the RFID tag 16, which ID can be read by
the long range reader 12 through the antennas 18 and 20, the RF transceiver
30, and the microprocessor 32. Id. at 9:22-25.
Memory 36 also stores information supplied to it by the short range
reader 14 through the secure link 22, the interface 34, and the
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

5
microprocessor 32. Id. at 9:25 to 10:3. This information can include, for
example,

the inventory history of the article to which the RFID tag 16
is attached. Accordingly, the date that the article entered
inventory, the date that the article left inventory, the length of
time that the article has been in inventory, any movement into
and out of inventory, and similar information may be stored in
the memory 36.
Id. at 10:4-10.
The information stored in the memory 36 may also include shipping
manifests indicating when and to whom the article is to be shipped. Id. at
10:11-13.

B. The claims
Claim 23, the sole independent claim, reads:
23. A method of transmitting data stored in a tag
comprising:
transmitting an ID from a memory, wherein the ID
identifies an article to which the tag is attached, and wherein the
tag includes the memory; and,
transmitting date based history information from the
memory, wherein the date based history information comprises
inventory information related to movement of the article
through inventory.
Claims App. 1.

Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

6
C. The references and rejection
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Tuttle et al. (“Tuttle”) US 5,448,110 Sep. 5, 1995
Price R-W et al. (“Price R-W”) US 6,052,068 Apr. 18, 2000
Otto US 6,554,187 Apr. 29, 2003
Howell et al. (“Howell”) GB 2,308,947 Sep. 9, 1997

1. Claims 23, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
anticipation by Tuttle. Final Action 4-5.
2. Claims 24-26, 29, and 34 stand rejected under § 103(a) for
obviousness over Tuttle in view of Howell. Id. at 6-7.
3. Claim 27 stands rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Tuttle in view of Howell and Otto. Id. at 7.
4. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness
over Tuttle in view of Price R-W. Id. at 8.
5. Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness
over Tuttle in view of Price R-W and Howell. Id. at 8-9.
6. Claim 28 stands rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Tuttle in view of Howell and Price R-W. Id. at 9-10.
Appellants separately argue the merits of most of the rejected claims.

THE ISSUE
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to point out the
errors in the Examiner’s position. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454,
1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that the Board's anticipation analysis be
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

7
conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with specific fact findings for
each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings.")
(emphasis added); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On
appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The principle issue raised by the rejections is whether the language
“date based history information compris[ing] inventory information related
to movement of the article through inventory” in claim 23 is satisfied by
information representing the date when an article enters inventory.

THE § 102 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 23, 39, AND 40
A. Principles of law
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification and limitations appearing in the
specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

8
B. Analysis
Tuttle discloses an “enclosed transceiver” in the form of an RFID
device or tag for use in a wide variety of fields, such as airline baggage
transport, delivery of parcels and mail, and inventory control (Tuttle, col. 2,
ll. 18-29), including “inventory control for many manufacturing industries”
(id., col. 4, ll. 3-4). In a passage relied on by the Examiner (e.g., Answer 3),
Tuttle explains that the enclosed transceiver is useful for “tracking people or
articles in both storage and transit.” Id., col. 3, ll. 12-14.
Figure 1A is reproduced below.

Figure 1A is a functional block diagram of an embodiment of an
enclosed transceiver in accordance with Tuttle’s invention. Id., col. 5, ll. 28-
29. The enclosed transceiver 1 includes a pair of batteries 2 and 3, a dipole
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

9
antenna 4 and 5, and an integrated circuit (IC) 11. Id., col. 6, ll. 13-16. The
dipole antenna couples radio signals between IC 11 and the communications
medium which separates enclosed transceiver 11 from an interrogator, not
shown. Id., col. 6, ll. 22-25. Integrated circuit 11 is a transceiver including
wake-up circuit 12, receiver 13, transmitter 14, control logic 15, and
memory 16. Id., col. 6, ll. 28-30.
Tuttle gives an example of using the enclosed transceiver when
checking baggage or mailing a package. Id., col. 6, l. 67 to col. 7, l. 1.
Specifically, when an enclosed transceiver of the present invention is placed
on the outside surface of a piece of luggage by an airline or on a package for
shipment by the postal service, an airline agent or postal worker operates an
interrogator. Id., col. 7, ll. 1-5. “The interrogator transmits information to
receiver 13 via an RF communication link concerning data such as the
owner's name, an ID number, point of origin, weight, size, route, destination,
amount of postage prepaid, billing information for debit, postage, handling,
or storage costs due, time stamp, and the like.” Id., col. 7, ll. 5-11 (emphasis
added). This received data is coupled to control logic 15 for processing,
encoding, and storage in memory 16 of the enclosed transceiver. Id., col. 7,
ll. 11-13. Stored data is made available for call up by an interrogator at one
or more points along the shipment route. Id., col. 7, ll. 13-15.
The Examiner (Final Action 4-5) reads claim 23 on the above baggage
checking/package shipment example and also on Tuttle’s description of the
transceiver as useful for “tracking people or articles in both storage and
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

10
transit” (Tuttle, col. 3, ll. 12-14).
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s position on several grounds.
One is that although Tuttle states that the enclosed transceiver 1 can be used
for inventory control,
Tuttle does not disclose what inventory control information is
to be stored by the enclosed transceiver 1. Therefore, one of
ordinary skill in the art would conclude that such inventory
control information is nothing more than an ID so that articles
in inventory can be distinguished from one another.
Br. 7.2 This argument suggests Appellants do not believe that the term
“inventory” in claim 23 reads on Tuttle’s above-noted baggage
checking/package shipping example. We do not agree. The term
“inventory,” which is not defined in Appellants’ Specification, is broad
enough to refer to the baggage items that have been checked or the packages
that have been accepted for shipment or are being shipped.
Appellants also deny that Tuttle’s “time stamp” represents a date. See
Br. 8 (“[T]here is no suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art that this
time stamp also include date information.”). We agree with the Examiner
that the artisan would have understood Tuttle’s time stamp to
include relevant time information such as year, month, day in
addition to hour, minute, etc. (as is provided in a typical time
stamp on facsimile transmission that may be found in USPTO
records). Further Tuttle discloses use in postal service

2 References herein to the Brief are to the “Corrected Appellant’s
Brief,” filed June 20, 2007.
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

11
suggesting date information such as day/month/year that is
typical in time stamp provided on postal deliveries which is
useful because postal packages are often in transit for more than
one day.
Answer 11. The Reply Brief does not challenge this position of the
Examiner.
Appellants also argue that the information stored in memory in
Tuttle’s baggage checking/package shipping example does not represent
“date based history information compris[ing] inventory information related
to movement of the article through inventory,” as required by claim 23.
Specifically, Appellants argue (1) that the only data stored in the memory of
Tuttle’s transceiver that represents an actual position of the article is the data
identifying the point of origin, (2) that the routing data and final destination
data entered at the point of origin represent prospective locations rather than
historical (i.e., actual) locations, (3) that the stored data is not altered or
supplemented after the article leaves the point of origin, and (4) that the
stored data which represents the point of origin does not constitute “date
based history information compris[ing] inventory information related to
movement of the article through inventory.” Br. 9-12. According to
Appellants, “Tuttle uses interrogators to monitor movement of the article
rather than keep a record of that movement on the article itself.” Reply Br.
3.
The Examiner, on the other hand, concluded that claim 23 is broad
enough to read on Tuttle’s stored data that represents the point of origin. See
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

12
Answer 13 (“[C]laim 23 does not require more than one information. The
claim only require[s] information ‘related to’ movement and the point of
origin of movement is clearly related to such movement.”). We agree. The
claim phrase “inventory information related to movement of the article
through inventory” (emphasis added) is satisfied by information that
indicates when a baggage item or package entered the inventory of the
baggage handling/package shipping system in Tuttle’s example. Also, the
phrase “history information” does not require information about more than
one historical event and thus is satisfied by entry of a baggage item or
package into the baggage handling/package shipping system.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 for anticipation by Tuttle.
Because, as explained above, we agree with the Examiner that the
claimed “date based history information compris[ing] inventory information
related to movement of the article through inventory” reads on Tuttle’s
stored data that represents the point of origin, it is not necessary to determine
whether Appellants are correct to argue that the data stored in Tuttle’s
memory is not modified after the baggage item or package leaves the point
of origin. However, in the interest of completeness we will address that
question.
The Examiner, as support for finding that “Tuttle discloses writing
information to memory of a transceiver during movement” (Answer 12),
quotes the second sentence of the following passage from column 2, lines
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

13
55-64 of Tuttle:
The IC also incorporates circuitry to allow for operation in a
sleep mode during transit and in storage in order to conserve
power. Thus, at shipment points of origin, destination, and
locations in transit, an operator may encode data into the IC or
interrogate the IC by signaling the IC from a remote location to
thereby ‘wake up’ the IC without engaging in any hands-on
operation.
Answer 12. Appellants responded to the Examiner’s reliance on that
sentence by arguing that “when read in context with the rest of the Tuttle, it
is clear that Tuttle means that data is encoded into the IC at the origin and
that this data is read from the IC at the destination and at locations in
transit.” Br. 11-12. This argument is unpersuasive in the absence of a
citation to any passage in Tuttle that allegedly supports Appellants’
interpretation, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006), which
provides that the “Argument” section of the Brief must include “[t]he
contentions of appellant with respect to each ground of rejection presented
for review in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section, and the basis therefor, with
citations of the statutes,
regulations, authorities, and parts of the record relied on.” (Emphasis
added.) Nor is any supporting passage cited in the Reply Brief.
Regarding dependent claim 39, Appellants argue that “Tuttle does not
disclose or suggest shipping information that indicates when the article is to
be shipped.” Br. 12. The Examiner responded that this argument “is not
persuasive because this limitation is anticipated by the time stamp of Tuttle.”
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

14
Answer 14-15. The Reply Brief fails to challenge this reasoning, instead
arguing the patentability of only claim 23. We are therefore affirming the
rejection of claim 39.
Claim 40, which depends on claim 23, specifies that “the date based
history information further comprises production information related to the
article.” Appellants argue that “Tuttle does not disclose that the enclosed
transmitter 1 stores production information.” Br. 12. The Examiner
responded that this argument “is not persuasive because above information
such as weight, size, and origin are related to production. Further, since no
particular production information is claimed or disclosed in Appellant’s
specification, information in the transceiver used for ‘manufacturing’ in
col. 13 line 20 of Tuttle would inherently include production
(manufacturing) information.” Answer 15. As the Reply Brief fails to
challenge this reasoning, we are affirming the rejection of claim 40.

THE § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIMS 24-26, 29,
AND 34 BASED ON TUTTLE IN VIEW OF HOWELL
A. Principles of law
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the
burden of coming forward with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness shifts to the applicant. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86.
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

15
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must be based on the following
factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art; and (4) any objective indicia of non-obviousness.
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17 (1966)).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007)).

“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is
altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1740.
Discussing the obviousness of claimed combinations of elements of
prior art, KSR explains:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

16
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
Id. If the claimed subject matter “involve[s] more than the simple
substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement,” id.,
it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of
multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed
by the patent at issue.
Id. at 1740-41. “To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.”
Id. at 1741. That is, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id.
(quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). See also PharmaStem Therapeutics Inc. v.
ViaCell Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (the proponent of
obviousness based on combination of references must show “that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the
composition or device, or carry out the claimed process, and would have had
a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”) (citations omitted).

Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

17
B. Analysis
Claims 24-26, 29, and 34 read as follows:
24. The method of claim 23 wherein the date based
history information further comprises a condition sensed by a
sensor.
25. The method of claim 24 wherein the condition
comprises temperature.
26. The method of claim 24 wherein the condition
comprises humidity.
29. The method of claim 24 wherein the condition
comprises a presence of a chemical.
34. The method of claim 23 wherein the transmitting of
an ID comprises transmitting the ID over a long range RF link.
Claims App. 1.
Howell discloses a RFID tag that includes one or more sensors
(Howell 9:18-21) for sensing any of a number of environmental parameters,
including temperature (id. at 4:13), pressure (id. at 8:19-21), humidity (id. at
9:22), and the presence of certain chemicals (id. at 10:1). The sensor output
information can be stored in a memory (6) in the tag and read therefrom in
response to an interrogation signal from a reader. Id. at 8:5-15. For
example,
a simple pressure sensor could be used in an identification tag
which would identify if a package within which the tag was
positioned had ever been opened, assuming such opening would
result in at least a short term pressure fluctuation. Such a
system would have great value in food distribution, for example
security seals for bottles or containers, and customs inspection,
for example for bonded packages, given that large numbers of
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

18
items could be tagged and scanned automatically with no line of
sight or contact requirements at acceptable costs.
Id. at 9:8-15.
Regarding claim 24, the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the
time the invention was made to include [a] condition sensed by
a sensor and a long range RF link in the device of Tuttle
because Tuttle suggests data written-in and Howell teaches [a]
condition sensed by a sensor and a long range RF link for the
purpose of providing remote sensing.
Final Action 6. Appellants argue that Tuttle and Howell would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the enclosed transmitter 1 of
Tuttle would benefit from any of the sensors of Howell. Br. 13. More
particularly, Appellants argue that
Tuttle discloses that the data is stored on the enclosed
transceiver 1 when the enclosed transceiver 1 is first put into
use. Such a disclosure would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the inclusion in the enclosed transceiver
1 of a sensor that would supply data after the enclosed
transceiver 1 is already in use.
Id. at 13-14.
The Examiner responded that “col. 2 lines 60-61 [of Tuttle] suggests
writing data to the tag at any point in use.” Answer 17. As pointed out
above, Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner is incorrect on
this point. Furthermore, the above-quoted passage from page 9, lines 8-15
of Howell describes entering pressure sensor data in the tag memory during
distribution or shipment of the associated article.
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

19
We are therefore affirming the rejection of claim 24.
We also are affirming the rejection of dependent claims 25, 26, 29,
and 34 because Appellants do not separately argue those claims in the Brief.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).

THE § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIM 27 BASED
ON TUTTLE IN VIEW OF HOWELL AND OTTO
Claim 27 (Claims App. 1) depends on claim 24 and specifies that “the
condition comprises proximity,” which is not among the conditions
mentioned by Howell.
Otto discloses an RFID tag detection method in which an RFID
interrogator 14 sends out a signal to interrogate any RFID labels in the
vicinity, which signal may be sent in response to a signal from a proximity
sensor. Otto, col. 3, ll. 9-12. The Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the
time the invention was made to include sensed condition is
proximity ([Otto] Fig. 2, col. 2 [sic: col. 3], lines 9-12,
proximity sensor, like barcode reader) in the device of Turtle in
view of Howell because Tuttle in view of Howell suggests long
range sensor and Otto teaches sensed condition is proximity for
the purpose of providing short range sensing.
Final Action 7. Appellants argue that
while Otto describes a proximity sensor, Otto does not disclose
or suggest a tag that stores any information related to the output
of the proximity sensor. Indeed, Otto merely uses the proximity
sensor in connection with an interrogator so as to sense the
presence of an article near the interrogator.
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

20
Br. 15. The Examiner stated that this argument
is not persuasive in view of Howell storing information from
sensors to indicate if the tag or article has been exposed to an
unacceptable condition. For example, changes in proximity
between a lid and a bottle or container would indicate
tampering suggested by the security seal in page 9 line 12 of
Howell.
Answer 17. Because the Reply Brief fails to address this reasoning, we are
affirming the rejection of claim 27.

THE § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIMS 30 AND 31
BASED ON TUTTLE IN VIEW OF PRICE R-W
Claims 30 and 31 read:
30. The method of claim 23 wherein the transmitting of
date based history information comprises transmitting the date
based history information over a secure short range link.
31. The method of claim 30 wherein the secure short
range link comprises a secure hardwire link.
Claims App. 2.
Price R-W discloses a vehicle identification system in which an RF
vehicle identification tag (VIT) and an interrogator communicate with each
other using encrypted RF signals. Figure 3 is a block diagram of an
interrogator 12 that includes an encryptor 33 for data protection of
transmitted messages (Price R-W, col. 5, ll. 19-24). Figure 4 is a block
diagram of a VIT including an encryptor 68, which encrypts the data read
out of memory before it is transmitted to the interrogator: “For responding to
the interrogator 12 after validation of the received message data, the
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

21
processor 64 of the VIT 16 retrieves the requested data from memory 66 and
performs encoding and interleaving of the response message data prior to
passing the response message data to encryptor 68.” Id., col. 8, ll. 58-62.
Citing these lines, the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the
time the invention was made to include [a] condition sensed by
a sensor in the device of Tuttle because Tuttle suggests data
written-in and Price R-W teaches transmitting data over a
secure link for the purpose of providing secure data.
Final Action 8.
Appellants’ discussion of the rejection of claim 30 fails to address the
Examiner’s above rationale, which is based on encryption of the data read
out of memory before transmitting it over an RF link to the interrogator.
Instead, Appellants (Br. 17-18) address Price R-W’s input/output circuit 52
(Fig. 3) and registration input 56 (Fig. 4), which the Examiner relies on in
the rejection of claim 31, which recites a secure hardware link (Final Action
8).
Although the Examiner’s reliance on encryptor 68 for encrypting
memory data prior to RF transmission to an interrogator is repeated at page
18, lines 8-11 of the Answer, this position of the Examiner is also not
addressed in the Reply Brief.
We are therefore affirming the rejection of claim 30.
Turning now to “secure hardware link” claim 31, as already noted, the
rejection of this claim is based on Price R-W’s input/output circuit 52 (Fig.
3) and registration input 56 (Fig. 4). Specifically, the Examiner stated:
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

22
Regarding claim 31, Price continues, as claimed in claim
30, to teach the RFID tag wherein the secure short range link is
a secure hardwire link (Figs. 3-4, col. 8, lines 15-18; col. 6,
lines 44-50, read or write via encrypted registration input 52
and 56 to registration computer wherein encrypted code is
processed).
Final Action 8. Of the above-cited passages, the passage in Price R-W that
discusses input/output circuit 52 reads as follows:
The processor 31 performs decoding and de-interleaving of the
data message received from the de-encryptor 42 then displays
the received vehicle registration data on the input/output 30 to
the authorized operator. The operator may elect to establish a
connection to a remote computer database server through a
computer input/output 52.
Col. 6, ll. 44-50. The above-cited passage in Price R-W that discusses
registration input 56 explains that “[t]he VIT is programmed via a
registration input 56 by a computer that communicates with the processor 64
through the decryption circuit 62 to read or store data in memory 66.” Id.,
col. 8, ll. 15-18.
Appellants have argued that
[w]hile Price R-W describes a computer input/output circuit 52
that can be used to connect the interrogator 12 to a remote
computer database server over external circuits, and while Price
R-W further describes a registration input 56 that can be used to
program a tag by use of a computer that communicates with the
processor 64 through the decryption circuit 62 to read or store
data in memory 66, there is no disclosure in Price R-W that
either of these connections is used to read date based history
information.
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

23
Br. 17-18. The Examiner responded by pointing out that
[v]ehicle registry information is date based history information
since vehicle registries expire at a certain date. See expiration
date in col. 4 line 58 of Price R-W. Also, Tuttle suggests time
based history information including billing information in a tag
and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
desirability to encrypt such information including billing
information to prevent fraudulent billing that is suggested by
the toll and/or credit balance in the tag of Price R-W. See col. 3
lines 50-67 of Price R-W.
Answer 18. The passage that includes the above-cited line from column 4
explains that “VITs 16 may be programmed with data selected and entered
by the issuing governmental agency, including a permanent registration
number and expiration date.” Price R-W, col. 4, ll. 55-58 (emphasis added).
The Examiner then concluded that “[t]he hardwire link of claim 31 would
have been obvious in view of link 56 [of] Price R-W discussed above to
‘read or store data in memory 68’ that includes vehicle registration
information that is date based.” Answer 18-19.
Because the Reply Brief fails to address the foregoing reasoning, we
are affirming the rejection of claim 31.

THE § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIMS 32 AND 33 BASED
ON TUTTLE IN VIEW OF PRICE R-W AND HOWELL
Claims 32 and 33 read:
32. The method of claim 30 wherein the secure short
range link comprises a secure magnetic link.
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

24
33. The method of claim 30 wherein the secure short
range link comprises a secure short range RF link.
Claims App. 2.

Howell explains that his tag can use “any of the existing transmission
schemes currently employed for passive tags. Transmission frequencies can
be of relatively high frequency, such as 2.45GHz or 915MHz, or of
relatively low frequency such as the range 50kHz to 250kHz.” Howell at
7:12-15. The Examiner, without challenge by Appellants, characterizes
communication using frequencies in the range of range 50kHz to 250kHz as
constituting a magnetic link and a short range RF link (Final Action 9). The
Examiner then concluded that
it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the
time the invention was made to include magnetic link and short
range RF link in the device of Tuttle in view of Price R-W
because Turtle in view of Price R-W suggests data written-in
and Howell teaches magnetic link and short range RF link for
the purpose of providing remote sensing.
Final Action 8-9.
Appellants responded to the rejection of both claims by arguing Price
R-W’s input/output circuit 52 (Fig. 3) and registration input 56 (Fig. 4) do
not suggest the claimed magnetic link or short range RF link (Br. 18-19), in
response to which argument the Examiner pointed out that Howell rather
than Price R-W is relied on for those links. Answer 19.
Consequently, we are affirming the rejection of clams 32 and 33.
Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

25

THE § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIM 28 BASED
ON TUTTLE IN VIEW OF HOWELL AND PRICE R-W
Claim 28 reads:
28. The method of claim 24 wherein the condition
comprises a voltage level of a battery powering the RFID tag.
Claims App. 1.
Appellants do not separately argue the merits of claim 28, instead (Br.
20) relying on the (unconvincing) arguments made with respect to claim 23.
The rejection of claim 28 is therefore affirmed.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision that claims 23, 39, and 40 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Tuttle is affirmed, as is the
Examiner’s decision that claims 24-34 are unpatentable under § 103(a) for
obviousness over Tuttle in view of other prior art.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f) and 41.52(b).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2008-4399
Application 10/235,899

26

msc

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
LAW DEPT. AB2
P.O. BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-9806