Ex Parte Posamentier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2009

11007898 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOSHUA POSAMENTIER and RISH MEHTA
____________

Appeal 2009-003891
Application 11/007,898
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: October 29, 2009
____________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, MARC S. HOFF, and KARL D. EASTHOM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003891
Application 11/007,898

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-8, 10, and 21-25, the only claims pending (Br. 5).1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants invented a method to select an antenna, out of a group of
antennas 24a-24d, which receives the strongest signal reflected from an
RFID (radio frequency identification) tag 26 (Abstract; Spec. 1:9-16; Fig. 1).
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A method comprising:
transmitting a signal over only one of at least two antennas at a time;
receiving a response to said transmitted signal on both of said
antennas; and
transmitting a signal over the antenna that previously received the
strongest signal.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Nagura US 5,525,991 Jun. 11, 1996
Reis US 5,686,902 Nov. 11, 1997
Lanzl US 6,353,406 B1 Mar. 5, 2002

The Examiner rejected:
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 21-25 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Reis and Lanzl.
Claim 4 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Reis, Lanzl,
and Nagura.

1 Appellants’ Brief (filed Jan. 14, 2008) (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Mar. 20, 2008) (“Ans.”) are referenced in this opinion.
Appeal 2009-003891
Application 11/007,898

3
ISSUE
Appellants contend (Br. 10) that the rejection based on the collective
teachings of Reis and Lanzl should be reversed because Lanzl fails to teach
or disclose receiving a response signal over each of antennas 104a-d.
Appellants’ contentions and the Examiner’s findings raise the following
issue: Did Appellants show that the Examiner erred in finding that the
references collectively teach “receiving a response to said transmitted signal
on both of said antennas” as recited in representative claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
The Examiner quoted Lanzl as follows:
The embodiment described above is simplified, based on an
assumption that the cell controller can send and receive from
only one antenna at a given time. Improved performance can be
achieved by selecting send and receive antennas independently
of each other. Software in the cell controller determines which
antenna module receives the best signal from the tag. For
example, if a particular tag, such as tag 101a, is close to an
antenna, such as antenna 104a, then the antenna 104 will
receive a strong signal from the tag 101a. The cell controller
102a can then transmit a signal, such as signal 106, from
antenna 104a, and receive the transponded response 107 at
antennas 104b, 104c, and 104d in turn. This can result in a
stronger signal received at the antennas 104b-d, compared to
the signal the antennas104b-d would have received had the
signal 106 been transmitted and the signal 107 received from
each of the antenna modules 104b-d independently.
(Ans. 6) (quoting Lanzl at col. 10, ll. 41-57) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2009-003891
Application 11/007,898

4
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). “[T]here must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellant carries the burden on appeal to show reversible error by the
Examiner in maintaining the rejection. See Kahn, 441 at 985-86 (“On
appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima
facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (citation
omitted). Obviousness is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole
and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at
1445.
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments group together claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 21-25
(Br. 10) with particular focus directed to independent claim 1. Appellants
argue against the rejection of independent claim 21 (of similar scope) “[o]n
the same basis” (id.). Accordingly, independent claim 1 is selected as
representative of this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants maintain (Br. 10) that Lanzl does not teach reception of the
response 107 “on the sole transmitting antenna [104a] of two antennas,”
asserting that Lanzl only teaches reception on the (non-transmitting)
antennas 104b, 104c, and 104d (out of the antenna group 104a-104d). In
response, the Examiner, relying upon, inter alia, Lanzl at column 10 (FF),
reasoned as follows:
Appeal 2009-003891
Application 11/007,898

5
The beginning of the above passage [(FF)]2 includes sending
and receiving from “only one antenna at a given time,” where
the 2440 Mhz interrogation signal is transmitted from each
antenna 104a-d (one at a time) and the 5780 Mhz response is
received from the same antenna that sent the interrogation
signal to determine the closest antenna to the tag as explained in
col. 4 lines 1-6 and col. 7 lines 36-47 of Lanzl. When antenna
104a is closest, as stated on the passage in col. 10 lines 41-57
quoted above, then the response to the signal transmitted on
antenna104a is also received on antennas 104b-d that may be
stronger compared to transmitting and receiving on the same
antenna 104b-d. The end of the passage recites receiving a
response from only antennas 104b-d because antenna 104a
already received a response from the same antenna 104a. Col.
10 lines 58-67 of Lanzl discloses that multiple receive antenna
modules for the same transmitted signal allows the controller to
employ special processing techniques to isolate multipath
effects using N receive chains, one for each of N antennas.
(Ans. 6-7)(emphasis added).
The record supports the Examiner’s reasoning. Skilled artisans would
have recognized that Lanzl’s antenna 104a must receive a signal for the
system to determine that “a particular tag, such as tag 101a, is close to an
antenna, such as antenna 104a, then the antenna 104 will receive a strong
signal from the tag 101a” (FF). In other words, Lanzl’s system simply
teaches reception at all the antennas (104), including the closest antenna
(104a) – in order to make the determination that antenna 104a is the closet
antenna to the responding tag 101a (FF). Lanzl’s teachings imply, or, at a
minimum, suggest, that the system measures and compares the magnitude of
the responsive tag signal 107 (responding to the transmitting signal 106 from
antenna 104a) at all antennas 104a -104d in the group (see FF). Appellants

2 The Examiner references the passage quoted supra (FF).
Appeal 2009-003891
Application 11/007,898

6
do not address the Examiner’s reasoning or findings in any meaningful
manner sufficient to demonstrate error.
(The portion of the quoted Lanzl passage (supra) “then the antenna
104 will receive a strong signal from the tag 101a” (FF) (emphasis added),
in context with the whole passage, implies that the designation “104” is
either in error and should be “104a” (i.e., to signify a single antenna), or
implies that all antennas in the group 104, including antenna 104a, receive
the transmitted signal. Either way, in light of the findings discussed supra,
the teaching bolsters the determination that Lanzl satisfies the disputed
limitation).
The Examiner also relied upon other portions of Lanzl, and in
addition, Reis, to support the disputed limitation findings:
[R]eceiving at antenna 104a is already included in at least col.
3 line 64, col. 4 lines 3-4, col. 7 lines 43-47 and col. 10 lines
23-29 of Lanzl. Receiving at antennas 104b-c is in addition to
reception at antenna 104a. Col. 4 lines 3-4 of Lanzl discloses
switching “to each of the antenna modules 104a-d (which
receive the return signal 107)”. Further, Reis already disclosed
receiving at all antenna modules in col. 44 lines 39-55 for
diversity.”
(Ans. 5) (quoting Lanzl).
Appellants also fail to address these additional findings in a manner
sufficient to demonstrate Examiner error.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and
21, and of claims 2-3, 5-8, 10, and 22-25 which fall with claim 1. Claim 4,
rejected for obviousness based on the additional reference to Nagura,
similarly falls with claim 1 based on Appellants’ reliance on their arguments
Appeal 2009-003891
Application 11/007,898

7
presented for claim 1 (Br. 10). In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
1987).

CONCLUSION
Appellants did not show that the Examiner erred in finding that the
references collectively teach “receiving a response to said transmitted signal
on both of said antennas” as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, and 21-
25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke

TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON TX 77057-2631