Ex Parte Stevens et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

11768328 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 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.
11/768,328 06/26/2007 John K. Stevens VAI.P-069 2853
73549 7590 08/31/2012
Larson & Anderson, LLC
re:VAI
P.O. Box 4928
Dillon, CO 80435-4928
EXAMINER
JIANG, YONG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2012 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 JOHN K. STEVENS, DAVID CRAMER, TOM PACKERT,
PAUL WATERHOUSE, JAMES W. CASSIDY, and
RODNEY D. GILCHRIST
____________

Appeal 2011-007622
Application 11/768,328
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2011-007622
Application 11/768,328

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a low frequency system
and method for RF tags (Spec. 2:15-19).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A system comprising:

a plurality of routers communicatively coupled with each other;

each router in turn communicatively coupled via RF
communication below 1 megahertz to a plurality of tags,

each tag having a battery and a static RAM powered by the
battery;

each tag having a radio transceiver and controller, the controller
of the tag controlling the transceiver and disposed to read and write
information to and from the static RAM of the tag and to
communicate said information via the transceiver to and from the
router;

each tag having a unique hardware address independent of the
static RAM and independent of the battery, said unique hardware
address communicable by the controller and the transceiver to and
from a router;

a portion of said information defining for at least one tag an
address independent of the hardware address to the tag, said address
stored within the static RAM;

each router characterized in having routing means for routing
data packets among the router to the at least one tag with reference to
the address independent of the hardware address of tag.

Appeal 2011-007622
Application 11/768,328

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the
teachings of Waterhouse (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0201454
A1, Oct. 14, 2004), Tymes (US Patent 5,668,803, Sept. 16, 1997), Graziano
(US Patent 5,758,075, May 26, 1998), and Swartz (US Patent 6,128,549,
Oct. 3, 2000).
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Waterhouse, Tymes, Graziano, Swartz, and
McNamara (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0028352 A1, Feb. 9,
2006).
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Waterhouse, Tymes, Graziano, Swartz, McNamara and
Wagner (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0174260 A1, Sept. 9,
2004).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend, contrary to the Examiner’s assertions (Ans. 4, 8),
Waterhouse fails to disclose a system including a plurality of tags, each tag
having a battery and a static RAM powered by the battery as claimed (App.
Br. 5). We agree. Paragraphs [0066] and [0067], cited by the Examiner as
disclosing this feature, fail to teach such a feature (App. Br. 5). Additionally,
the Examiner cited U.S. Patent 6,329,944 to Paratore in the Response section
of the Answer, which is incorporated by reference into Waterhouse, stating
Paratore discloses an RFID tag including a memory that can be a RAM
(Ans. 8). However, as pointed out by Appellants, the patent referenced is to
Richardson, not Paratore, and does not disclose a battery. Further, U.S.
Appeal 2011-007622
Application 11/768,328

4
Patent 6,294,997 to Paratore, also incorporated by reference, discloses a
passive tag, which does not include or require a battery. (Paratore, col 2, ll.
21-22; Reply Br. 2). Thus, we agree with Appellants that Waterhouse does
not disclose this feature of the claimed invention. Tymes and Graziano do
not cure Waterhouse’s deficiency.
With respect to claims 2-6, these claims include the argued feature of
claim 1 and were rejected over Waterhouse in view of various combinations
of Tymes, Graziano, Swartz, McNamara, and Wagner. For the above reasons
and because Tymes, Graziano, Swartz, McNamara, and Wagner do not cure
Waterhouse’s deficiency, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 is reversed.

REVERSED

Pgc/peb