Ex Parte Borisov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2016

13540537 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/540,537
97928 7590
Zebra/ Alston & Bird
101 S. Tryon Street
Suite 4000
FILING DATE
07/02/2012
07/05/2016
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YEVGENIY BORISOV
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.
054054/418123 7573
EXAMINER
FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
jonathan.thomas@alston.com
IP _Legal@zebra.com
USPTOmail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEVGENIY BORISOV, KARL TORCHALSKI, and
DANIEL F. DONATO
Appeal2014-005744
Application 13/540,537
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 18-38. Claims 1-17 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-005744
Application 13/540,537
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Independent claims 18 and 29, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
18. A near-field coupling device for coupling a transceiver
with a targeted transponder, the near-field coupling device
compnsmg:
a ground plane;
a dielectric substrate adjacent to the ground plane;
a terminating load;
a first radiating element adjacent the dielectric substrate
and extending from a port end to a loaded end and connected to
the terminating load;
a second radiating element adjacent the dielectric
substrate and extending from the port end to the loaded end and
connected to the terminating load; and
at least one switching element for selectively electrically
connecting one or more of the first and second radiating
elements with the transceiver to define a total characteristic
impedance of connected radiating elements, wherein in a first
configuration of the switching element, the total characteristic
impedance of the connected radiating elements is greater than
the terminating load and, in a second configuration of the
switching element, the total characteristic impedance of the
connected radiating elements is less than the terminating load.
29. An apparatus comprising a processor, the processor
configured to:
receive indications of at least one of a transponder
configuration and a transponder position; and
connect one or more radiating elements of a near-field
coupling device depending on at least one of the transponder
configuration and a transponder position to configure a variable
impedance ratio between the one or more connected radiating
elements and a terminating load of the near-field coupling
device.
2
Appeal2014-005744
Application 13/540,537
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) claims 18 and 21-27 as being obvious in view of Foster (US
2004/0195319 Al; Oct. 7, 2004) and Pierro (US 5,446,424; Aug. 29, 1995);
claims 19-20 as being obvious in view of Forster, Pierro and Borsboom (US
5,677,629; Oct. 14, 1997); claim 28 as being obvious in view Forster, Pierro
and Tsirline et al. (US 2004/0178267 Al; Sept. 16, 2004); and claims 29-38
as being obvious in view of Tsirline, Pierro and Forster. Specifically,
Appellants contend the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed
first and second configurations of radiating elements recited in claim 18 and
similar limitations in the remaining claims.
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18-27
on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over Claims 1---6 ofBorisov et al. (US 8,078,103 B2; Dec. 13,
2011).
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner cites Foster as evidencing a near-field coupling device
having a terminating load and first and second radiating elements and cites
Pierro as evidencing selective switching of multiple radiating elements. See
Ans. 14. Appellants argue neither Forster nor Pierro, alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests the claimed "at least one switching
element" that selectively connects radiating elements into a first
configuration in which "the total characteristic impedance of the connected
radiating element is greater than the terminating load," or the claimed "a
3
Appeal2014-005744
Application 13/540,537
second configuration" in which the total characteristic impedance of the
connected radiating element is greater than the terminating load as cited in
claim 18. App. Br. 6-7.
Appellants characterize the Examiner's findings as stating that "as a
matter of inherence of the operational mechanisms of a pin diode of Pierro,
the total characteristic impedance of transmission lines 128 of Forster, cited
for showing Appellant[s'] radiating elements is varied according to the on
and off operation states of the pin diode." App. Br. 7 (quoting Final Act.
17). According to Appellants, though, the disputed limitations of claim 18
"recite[] particular relationships between the impedances of connected
radiating elements with respect to the impedance of the terminating load for
the first and second configurations," not just a variable impedance as taught
by Pierro. App. Br. 7. Appellants also contend that the claimed
configurations of radiating elements provide the advantage of limiting
communications to "a targeted transponder of a plurality of transponders" at
different locations or orientations without unwanted communications with
one or more non-targeted transponders. Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. i-fi-1 40-43).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. As cited by the
Examiner (Ans. 14), Forster's RFID detection system that creates a short-
range RF field using a proximity locator and at least two transmission lines.
See Forster i141. Forster states that its short-range field is approximately 15
mm (Forster i145) with "substantially no long-range RF field" (Forster i150).
As such, consistent with the "near-field coupling device for coupling a
transceiver with a targeted transponder" in the preamble of claim 18 and
described in Appellants' disclosures (see Spec. i140), Forster teaches that its
detection system will detect and couple only an RFID device in close
4
Appeal2014-005744
Application 13/540,537
proximity to the transmission lines without coupling distant transponders
(Forster i-fi-151, 110). We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that
"[n]one of the [cited prior art] are directed to wireless communications with
a targeted transponder" (Reply Br. 3) and agree with the Examiner that
Forster's teachings fall within a reasonable interpretation of the claimed
near-field device for coupling a transceiver with a targeted transponder, as
recited in the preamble.
We also disagree with Appellants' arguments that including a known
switching element such as the pin diodes disclosed in Pierro with the system
taught by Forster would have destroyed the principle operation "(e.g., a
fixed impedance for transmission lines 26 and 28 and terminating resistor 32
to facilitate impedance matching)" or rendered Forster inoperable for its
intended purpose "(e.g., a variable, unmatched impedance would 'cause a
malfunction or in certain cases damage to the reader circuitry' as stated para.
[0053] of Forster)." App. Br. 8-9 (quoting Forster i153). Forster states that
the value of a terminating resistor may be "chosen" in combination with the
characteristic impedance of the transmission line to provide "a good
impedance match," but Forster describes a good impedance match as a
voltage standing wave ratio of 2: 1 or better. Forster i-f 53.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, a person of ordinary skill would
have understood that Forster's disclosure of a voltage standing wave ratio of
"2: 1 or better" suggests transmission lines chosen with a characteristic
impedance greater than, equal to, or less than the terminating load,
preferably with a voltage standing wave ratio of 2: 1 or better. See, e.g.,
Erick C. Jones & Christopher A. Chung, RFID IN LOGISTICS: A PRACTICAL
INTRODUCTION 439 (2007) ("The SWR [standing wave ratio] is simply the
5
Appeal2014-005744
Application 13/540,537
ratio of the resistance of the termination and the characteristic impedance of
the line. For example, a 75-ohm load will give a SWR of 1.5 when used to
terminate a 50-ohm cable since 75/50 = 1.5. A 25-ohm resistor will give an
SWR of2 since 50/25 = 2."). Indeed, Forster discloses use of a single reader
to detect different RFID devices at multiple locations using multiple
transmission lines (Forster Fig. 4, i-fi-164---65) and a "matching network" to
change the impedance of the signal transmitted from the reader to the
transmission lines (Forster i1 55).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary
skill would have understood Forster to be consistent with a system that
includes a switching element and includes first and second configurations
having with characteristic impedances greater than, less than, or equal to the
terminating load, while preferably maintaining a 2: 1 ratio or better. The
Examiner additionally cites Rajan as evidence that selection of such
configurations would have been a matter of design choice (Ans. 14--15),
which is consistent with Appellants' Specification. See Spec. i1 40 ("In
various embodiments of the present invention, each transmission line may or
may not be 'matched,' i.e. the characteristic impedance of the transmission
line may differ from that of the terminating resistor 58.").
Appellants offer no evidence to establish that the Examiner's
proffered combination of references would have been "uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'!
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Accordingly, we agree with
the Examiner's conclusion that claim 18 would have been obviousness in
view of the combined teachings of the cited references. For independent
6
Appeal2014-005744
Application 13/540,537
claims 29 and 34, Appellants rely on the same arguments as those advanced
for claim 18, which we find unpersuasive for the same reasons. Having
considered each of Appellants' arguments in view of the Examiner's
obviousness rejections and the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded of
error and sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 18, 29,
and 34, as well as dependent claims 19-28, 30-33, and 35-38, which are not
argued separately. We adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and
reasons in the Examiner's Final Rejection and the Answer as consistent with
the above.
The Double-patenting Rejection
Appellants argue claims18-27 are patentably distinct from claims 1-6
of Borisov because of the claims first and second configurations of
switching elements as recited in claims 18-27. App. Br. 13-14. The
nonstaturoy double-patenting rejection includes a claim chart comparing
certain limitations of claims 18-27 to claim 1 of Borisov (Final Act. 3--4),
but we agree with the Appellants that the double patenting rejection does not
explain how the first and second configurations of switching elements in
claims 18-27 are disclosed or suggested in Borisov. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the double-patenting rejection of claims 18-27.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
18-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of
claims 18-27 under the doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting.
7
Appeal2014-005744
Application 13/540,537
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8