Ex Parte Graumann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 3, 2017

12284440 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2017)

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.
12/284,440 09/22/2008 David Graumann P27293 2121
88032 7590 04/05/2017
TnrHanTPT aw T T C EXAMINER
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
KUE, KAYING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2017 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):
info@jordaniplaw.com
admin @jordaniplaw.com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID GRAUMANN and DAVID BRUNEAU
Appeal 2015-0038901 2
Application 12/284,440
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 8—13 and 15—17.
We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to a system for applying electronic
chipsets to textiles. Spec., para. 1.
1 The Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
2 Claims 1—4, 6, and 7 have been withdrawn and claims 5, 14, and 18 have
been cancelled. Br. 17—19.
Appeal 2015-003890
Application 12/284,440
Independent claim 8 is illustrative:
8. An apparatus, comprising:
a first chip package portion of a chip package to be
mounted to a textile, said first chip package portion having a
connector with a first set of pads having gaps between the pads
and a second set of pads to overlap the gaps of the first set of
pads, in which the first chip package portion is to be mounted to
a second chip package portion from an opposite side of the
textile.
Claims 8—13 and 15—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Israel (US 5,099,228, iss. Mar. 24, 1992).
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that Israel fails to teach “a first set of pads
having gaps between the pads and a second set of pads to overlap the gaps of
the first set of pads,” as recited in independent claim 8. Br. 6—12.
Specifically, the Appellants assert that Israel discloses neither (1) gaps
between a first set of pads, nor (2) a second set of pads which overlap those
gaps. Id. at 11. The Examiner responds and asserts that Israel discloses:
said first chip package portion having a connector (i.e. PCB with
pads therein and gaps for electrical isolation therein) with a first
set of pads (see Fig. 5 for pads in encoder 86; Al, A2, A6, and
A7) having gaps between the pads and a second set of pads (see
Fig. 5, pads A3, A4, A5 other than Al, A2, A3, A6, A7 in
encoder 86) to overlap the gaps of the first set of pads.
Ans. 4. In other words, the Examiner asserts that there are gaps between
selected input lines Al, A2, A6, and A7 into encoder 86, and that additional
input lines A3, A4, and A5 “overlap the gaps” between the selected lines.
We agree with the Appellants.
2
Appeal 2015-003890
Application 12/284,440
The claimed recitation of a “first set of pads having gaps between the
pads and a second set of pads to overlap the gaps of the first set of pads,” is
depicted in Figure 5 of the Specification, as annotated by Appellants.
Figure 5 depicts connector pads in a chip to be attached to a textile. As is
apparent in Figure 5, the second set of pads overlap the gaps between each
pad of the first set of pads.
Concerning the Examiner’s citations to Israel for the aforementioned
claim limitation, as an initial matter, we are unclear as to how input lines
Al—A7 correspond to gaps and pads, as Figure 5 of Israel is a schematic
diagram, and the Examiner has not explained adequately how the disclosure
in the Figure translates to the physical realm.
3
Appeal 2015-003890
Application 12/284,440
Figure 5, shown above, depicts a schematic of the electrical circuitry
enclosed within the security tag. Moreover, even if the physical translation
was roughly analogous to the schematic one, the Examiner asserts that input
lines Al, A2, A6, and A7 correspond to the recited first set of pads, even
though we are unclear how an input line3 can be a pad4. Assuming that is
sufficient, however, the Examiner then presumably appears to be indicating
that the spaces between those address terminals, i.e., between pairs of
address terminals, correspond to the recited gaps. The problem then,
however, is that the Examiner has identified input lines A3, A4, and A5 as
corresponding to the recited “second set of pads.” With that claim mapping,
at best, input lines A3, A4, and A5, individually and/or collectively, overlap
only one gap between pairs of input lines Al, A2, A6, and A7, i.e., the gap
between input lines A2 and A6 only. That is insufficient to meet “a second
set of pads to overlap the gaps of the first set of pads,” with “gaps” being
plural, as recited in independent claim 8.
Independent claim 16, argued together with independent claim 8,
recites similar, but broader, claim language of “the first chip package portion
3 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms defines “line” as
“[a] component part of a system extending between adjacent stations or from
a station to an adjacent interconnection point. A line may consist of one or
more circuits.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard
Terms, 618 (7th Ed., Standards Information Network, IEEE Press 2000).
4 The Specification, in various places, refer to “connector pads” (para. 10),
“chip pads” (para. 25), “chip package connections (e.g., pads) and the chip
lines” (para. 28), “leading edge pages 507 and trailing edge pads 509” (para.
29), and “conductive pads 507, 509” (para. 31). The Specification also
discloses that “[tjypically, this member or set of holding pads will be made
of an insulating material that can conform about the wires for physically
securing them in place” (para. 31).
4
Appeal 2015-003890
Application 12/284,440
having redundant pads for connection to wires in the textile.” Br. 12. As
with independent claim 8, the Examiner has not explained adequately how to
analyze the schematic diagram of Figure 5 of Israel to arrive at the
aforementioned claim limitation, or how input lines Al—A7 correspond to
the recited pads. Additionally, the Examiner has provided no explanation as
to how Israel’s input lines Al—A7 are “redundant,” as recited in independent
claim 16. On the contrary, input lines Al—A7 do not appear to be redundant,
because Israel’s device “encodes nine bits of information applied to address
terminals Al—A9, and serially transmits this information in the form of two
nine-bit words” (Israel, col. 4,11. 36-40), appearing to indicate that a loss of
one of input lines Al—A9 would prevent encoder 86 from working properly.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 8 and 16, or claims 9—13, 15, and 17 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8—13 and 15—17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
5