Ex Parte BERNARD et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2018

15144034 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/144,034 05/02/2016
53666 7590 11/13/2018
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
Mark Bellermann
c/o CPA Global
900 Second A venue South, Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frederic BERNARD
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0134-006002 4909
EXAMINER
TSVEY, GENNADIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@brakehughes.com
uspto@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERIC BERNARD, NICOLAS CORDIER,
FLORIAN PERNISEK, and BRUNO CHARRAT
Appeal 2018-001151
Application 15/144,034 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Applicants are Inside Secure, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2018-001151
Application 15/144,034
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the final rejection of
claims 2-20. Claim 1 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to sending data by inductive coupling,
which includes extracting an antenna signal from an antenna circuit,
extracting a first periodic signal from the antenna signal, producing a second
periodic signal by way of a synchronous oscillator, placing the oscillator in a
free oscillation mode and applying to the antenna circuit the second periodic
signal, modifying the impedance of the antenna circuit, restoring the
amplitude of the antenna signal, and resynchronizing the oscillator on the
first periodic signal. (Abstract.)
Claim 2 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
2. A method for sending a data frame by inductive
coupling, the method comprising:
receiving, by inductive coupling at an antenna circuit, an
alternating external magnetic field, the antenna circuit being
tuned based on a carrier frequency of the alternating external
magnetic field;
producing, using the antenna circuit, a first periodic
signal that is based on the alternating external magnetic field;
producing, by an oscillator circuit, a second periodic
signal that is based on the first periodic signal;
performing a first synchronization of the second periodic
signal based on the first periodic signal by placing the oscillator
circuit in a synchronous oscillation mode;
placing the oscillator circuit in a free oscillation mode;
2
Appeal 2018-001151
Application 15/144,034
sending a first portion of the data frame by applying the
second periodic signal to the antenna circuit, the first portion of
the data frame being on a scale of one data bit or less; and
after the sending the first portion of the data frame:
performing a second synchronization of the second
periodic signal to the first periodic signal by placing the
oscillator circuit in the synchronous oscillation mode
before applying the second periodic signal to the antenna
circuit to send a second portion of the data frame, the
second portion of the data frame being on the scale of
one data bit or less.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, and 12-19 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 8, and 11-17 of commonly owned Charrat (US 9,331,748 B2;
May 3, 2016).
Claims 2, 6, 9, and 13-18 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1,
5, 6, 10, and 12-16 of commonly owned Charrat (US 8,838,023 B2;
Sept. 16, 2014). 2
2 Appellants do not present any substantive arguments with respect to the
rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, 9, and 12-19 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. (App. Br. 7-8.) In
particular, Appellants have "requested that the double patenting rejections be
held in abeyance until such time as allowable subject matter is identified in
the present application" and "will take appropriate action, such as filing of
an appropriate terminal disclaimer, upon a determination of allowability of
the claims on appeal." (Id.) Thus, any such arguments are deemed to be
waived.
3
Appeal 2018-001151
Application 15/144,034
Claims 2-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Pitt-Pladdy (US 2008/0018433 Al; Jan. 24, 2008) and Krishna (US
2006/0022800 Al; Feb. 2, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9-10) that the
combination of Pitt-Pladdy and Krishna would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 2, which includes the limitation "performing a second
synchronization of the second periodic signal to the first periodic signal by
placing the oscillator circuit in the synchronous oscillation mode before
applying the second periodic signal to the antenna circuit to send a second
portion of the data frame."
The Examiner found that phase detector 110 of Pitt-Pladdy, which
detects the difference between the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO)
generated RF signal and the received RF signal, and adjusts phase and
frequency of the internally generated RF signal, corresponds to the limitation
"performing a second synchronization of the second periodic signal to the
first periodic signal by placing the oscillator circuit in the synchronous
oscillation mode." (Final Act. 14--15.) The Examiner further found that:
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have easily realized
that by switching the switch 128 shown in Fig. 4 of Pitt-Pladdy
from transmission to reception ( during which resynchronization
to external signal is performed) not upon the completion of the
entire transmission, but instead between the transmission of each
packet, the next more precise level of synchronization may be
achieved which is disclosed by Krishna as packet scale.
(Ans. 23.) Accordingly, the Examiner found that the combination of Pitt-
Pladdy and Krishna teaches the limitation "before applying the second
4
Appeal 2018-001151
Application 15/144,034
periodic signal to the antenna circuit to send a second portion of the data
frame." We do not agree with the Examiner's findings.
Pitt-Pladdy relates to radio-frequency identification (RFID), including
"both traditional RFID systems, in which an RFID tag is used for
identification, [and] other systems such as near field communications (NFC)
systems." (i-f 1.) In particular, Pitt-Pladdy explains that "[t]he apparatus of
the present invention may be used ... as a reader and tag emulation
apparatus." (i-f 26.) Figure 4 of Pitt-Pladdy illustrates a circuit diagram of an
apparatus in tag emulation mode. (i-f 33.) Pitt-Pladdy explains that "[i]n tag
emulation mode, the apparatus [100] receives an RF signal from an external
reader device 146" and "[ w ]here the default mode is not tag emulation or
where the apparatus is in reader mode then the apparatus has means to
switch from reader mode into tag emulation mode," for example,
switch 128. (i-f 36.) Pitt-Pladdy further explains that "phase detector 110
detects the difference in frequency and phase between the VCO generated
RF signal and the received RF signal" (i-f 37) and "[t]he phase lock loop
process will continue until an instruction to modulate and transmit the
internally generated RF signal is received from the microprocessor" which
"may occur once phase locking between the external RF signal and VCO
generated signal has been detected by microprocessor 132" (i-f 38).
Krishna relates to "scheduling tag interrogations in an RFID system
including a coordinated RFID tag reader array." (i-f 3.) Krishna explains that
"time synchronization of multiple readers falls into three levels of precision,
i.e., transaction scale, packet scale, and bit scale," such that "bit-scale
synchronization is available when the timing in a reader is resolved and
5
Appeal 2018-001151
Application 15/144,034
accurate to the time scale of a small fraction of a single modulation bit
within a message packet." (i-f 153.)
Although the Examiner found that the combination of Pitt-Pladdy and
Krishna teaches the limitation "before applying the second periodic signal to
the antenna circuit to send a second portion of the data frame," the Examiner
has provided insufficient evidence to support such a finding. In particular,
while Pitt-Pladdy explains that apparatus 100 receives an RF signal from an
external reader device 146, and phase detector 110 continuously
synchronizes the RF signal, Pitt-Pladdy is silent with respect to
synchronization occurring between two "portions" of the RF signal, as
required by claim 1. Moreover, even if Pitt-Pladdy was modified by
Krishna, the Examiner has not made a finding that such a modification
would result in a reasonable expectation of success. For example, the
Examiner has not explained how toggling switch 128 between reader mode
into tag emulation mode before the transmission of a bit scale RF signal
would produce an operable device.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that
"synchronization of the data modulation signal is only performed between
complete transmissions, not interleaved with a data transmission, such as in
the method recited in claim 2" (App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted)) and
Pitt-Pladdy, as was noted above, discloses approaches where a
periodic signal used for data transmission (i.e., an internal signal)
is synchronized with an external signal ( e.g., an external field)
between complete transmissions. For instance, Pitt-Pladdy
describes a device with two operating modes, a "reader" mode
and a "card emulation" mode, where these modes are selectable
by a switch 128
(id. at 10 ( emphases omitted).)
6
Appeal 2018-001151
Application 15/144,034
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3-8 depend from claim 2. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 2.
Independent claim 9 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to claim 2. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, as well as
dependent claims 10-20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 2.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 5, 6, 9, and 12-19 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7