10672656 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Rigge

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 30, 2012

10672656 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

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. 10/672,656 09/26/2003 Lawrence Allen Rigge Rigge 7 8206 47386 7590 07/30/2012 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 1300 POST ROAD SUITE 205 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824 EXAMINER DOAN, KIET M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/30/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte LAWRENCE ALLEN RIGGE ____________________ Appeal 2010-004433 Application 10/672,656 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004433 Application 10/672,656 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-14, 16-19, and 23-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 1, 13, and 25 under appeal read as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method for wireless communication between an integrated circuit device and a monitoring station, said method comprising the steps of: transmitting a wireless signal from said integrated circuit device to said monitoring station using an antenna associated with said integrated circuit device, wherein said antenna is a pin on said integrated circuit device, and wherein said monitoring station performs one or more of testing, debugging and evaluating said integrated circuit. 13. An integrated circuit device, comprising: at least one circuit; and an antenna for wireless communication with an external monitoring station, wherein said antenna is a pin on said integrated circuit device, and wherein said monitoring station performs one or more of testing, debugging and evaluating said integrated circuit. 25. A method for wireless communication between an integrated circuit device and a monitoring station, said method comprising the steps of: transmitting a wireless signal to said monitoring station from said integrated circuit device using an antenna associated with said integrated circuit device, wherein said antenna is a pin on said integrated circuit device, and wherein said monitoring station performs one or more of testing, debugging and evaluating said integrated circuit. Appeal 2010-004433 Application 10/672,656 3 Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 12-14, 16, 24, and 25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of King (US 7,050,017 B2) and Gass (US 2004/0123193 Al). 1 2. The Examiner rejected claim 5-7 and 17-19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of King, Gass, and Welch (US 2004/0097246 Al). 3. The Examiner rejected claim 11 and 23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of King, Gass, and Schmidt (US 2002/0196029 A1). Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because: [T]he Examiner asserts that King et al. teach, at col. 5, lines 61-62, that “at least one pin is an antenna pin for connection to an external antenna.” A pin that is “an antenna pin for connection to an external antenna,” however, does not disclose or suggest that “said antenna is a pin on said integrated circuit device,[”] as required by the independent claims. (App. Br. 4) (emphasis omitted). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the argued pin antenna limitation? 1 Separate patentability is not argued for independent claims 13 and 25. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2010-004433 Application 10/672,656 4 ANALYSIS We agree with the Appellant’s above contention 1. The King reference describes an antenna pin 11 capacitively coupled to the conductive belt 74 to provide a monopole antenna 16 arrangement. (Col. 6, ll.14-18). We find that this portion of King does not teach a “pin antenna” as required by the claims. We direct the Examiner’s attention to Tuttle (US 6,058,497) which teaches the claimed invention of claims 1, 13, and 25, except for the “relatively small” antenna of Tuttle (col. 6, ll. 53-56) is not taught to be a pin antenna. We also direct the Examiner’s attention to Amadeo (US 2002/0055822 A1) which teaches the claimed invention of claims 1, 2, 4, 11-14, 16, and 23-25, (paragraphs [0008] and [0021]) except for the antenna of Amadeo (“wire antenna 205” at paragraph 2 [0021]) is not taught to be a pin antenna. We leave it to the Examiner to determine (1) if a pin antenna is known, and (2) if a rejection based on this art is appropriate. CONCLUSIONS Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-14, 16-19, and 23-25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2010-004433 Application 10/672,656 5 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED msc