Ex Parte Yanagawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

12498669 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
12/498,669 07/07/2009 Tomoaki Yanagawa JP920080112US1 8818
45095 7590 10/02/2017
HOFFMAN WARNTOK T T C
EXAMINER
540 Broadway
4th Floor
FRIED, JOSEPH H
ALBANY, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMOAKI YANAGAWA,
KAORU FUKUDA, and SHOHHEI FUJIO
Appeal 2015-005676
Application 12/498,669
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1—4 and 11—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-005676
Application 12/498,669
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims. The claims relate generally
to RFID tags and, more specifically, to an apparatus for recognizing
information on RFID tags using a pair of antennas with different
directivities, which affects their readable ranges, to form a single antenna.
Spec. 9:16—11:9, Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for recognizing information stored in an IC
tag, comprising:
an antenna part having a first antenna and a second
antenna for receiving electric waves from the IC tag, and
configured to form a plurality of readable ranges including
a first readable range of the first antenna and a second
readable range of the second antenna, wherein, in a plane,
the entirety of the second readable range is within the first
readable range such that the first readable range extends
beyond the second readable range, wherein an antenna
plane of the first antenna and an antenna plane of the
second antenna are oriented mutually in the same direction,
wherein the first antenna and the second antenna have
different directivities, such that the first antenna has
maximum gain in a vertical direction and the second
antenna has low gain with at least one null point in the
vertical direction;
a reader part for reading the information stored in the
IC tag via the antenna part as the IC tag is displaced through
the plurality of readable ranges; and
a determination part for determining whether the
information stored in the IC tag should have been read by
the reader part, based on a presence or absence of
information read via the first antenna and the second
antenna in the plurality of readable ranges.
2
Appeal 2015-005676
Application 12/498,669
REJECTION
Claims 1—4 and 11—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Oget (US 7,380,723 Bl; June. 3, 2008) and Liu (US
2006/0250253 Al; Nov. 9, 2006). Final Act. 2-8.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious in view of the
combined teachings of Oget and Liu. Specifically, the Examiner finds Oget
teaches every limitation of claim 1, except “wherein, in a plane, the entirety
of the second readable range is within the first readable range such that the
first readable range extends beyond the second readable range” (the “in a
plane limitation”) and “wherein the first antenna and the second antenna
have different directivities, such that the first antenna has maximum gain in
a vertical direction and the second antenna has low gain with at least one
null point in the vertical direction.” Final Act. 3—4. The Examiner finds Liu
teaches using “a first antenna with a maximum gain in a vertical direction
and a second antenna with a low gain with at least one null point in the
vertical direction.” Final Act. 4 (citing Liu, Figs. 9A, 1 IB). The Examiner
also finds Liu teaches using such a combination of “antennas proximate to
each other and a path of travel of the [RFID] tag to determine whether the
information stored in the [RFID] tag should have been read by a reader
part.” Id. (citing Liu, Abstract).
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to combine the Liu’s
disclosed antenna configurations with Oget’s system for tracking RFID tags,
and to arrange Liu’s antennas to “produce the coverage pattern disclosed by
Oget in order to achieve the advantages, purpose, and solution disclosed by
Oget where a particular environment or application lacks a requirement for
3
Appeal 2015-005676
Application 12/498,669
the reader [to] have directional awareness.” Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner
finds the proposed modifications to Oget’s system would result in one of
Oget’s readable ranges encompassing and overlapping the other readable
range. Thus, the Examiner finds the proposed modified system teaches “in a
plane, the entirety of the second readable range is within the first readable
range such that the first readable range extends beyond the second readable
range,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants concede that Oget’s Figure 3 discloses that a plane “taken
directly into and out of the page within overlapping area 329” is a plane “in
which the entirety of first reading area 323 is within second reading area
328.” App. Br. 5. Appellants argue, however, that Oget does not teach the
entire in a plane limitation because, in the identified plane, neither of reading
areas 323 and 328 extend beyond the other reading area, as required by
claim 1. Id. However, as Appellants note, id. at 6, the Examiner concedes
Oget does not disclose the in a plane limitation and the Examiner finds the
combination of Oget and Liu teaches the in a plane limitation.
Appellants further argue it is unclear how Liu teaches the in a plane
limitation or would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Oget to teach the in a plane limitation. App. Br. 6—7. Specifically,
Appellants argue that, if one wanted to achieve the arrangement disclosed by
Oget, one would not have been motivated to combine Liu’s antennas with
Oget’s system and to modify the combination to create Oget’s originally
disclosed coverage pattern. Id. Rather, Appellants contend, one would have
left Oget unmodified. Id. at 6.
Appellants further assert that modifying Oget as claimed would render
Oget unsuitable for its intended purpose and change its principle of
operation. App. Br. 6—8. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner’s
4
Appeal 2015-005676
Application 12/498,669
proposed modification would eliminate Oget’s ability to detect the direction
of movement, which Oget discloses as the purpose of its system. Id. at 7—8.
Appellants’ argument that Oget does not disclose the in a plane
limitation is not persuasive because, as Appellants acknowledge, the
Examiner does not rely on Oget alone to teach that limitation. Nevertheless,
we find the Examiner’s proposed combination problematic, and we
ultimately agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness is not supported by the asserted findings.
First, the Examiner’s identified rationale for modifying Oget to use
Liu’s antenna configurations is to achieve Oget’s advantages, purpose and
solution in applications when directional awareness is not needed. See Final
Act. 5—6. The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of a reason the claimed
invention would have been obvious. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))). The
Examiner’s proposal of completely redesigning Oget’s system (i.e.,
removing Oget’s disclosed antenna configuration and combining two of
Liu’s alternate antenna configurations to create a first readable range that
encompasses, and extends beyond, a second readable range) in order to
achieve Oget’s purpose in applications that do not need directional
awareness does not constitute a reason with a rational underpinning to
modify Oget because Oget is already capable of achieving the stated purpose
by merely ignoring the directional information if it is not needed for a
particular application.
5
Appeal 2015-005676
Application 12/498,669
Second, there is no apparent reason to combine Liu’s two antennas
depicted in Figures 9A and 1 IB because Liu’s radiation pattern (or readable
range) disclosed in Figure 1 IB is intended to provide an improvement over
the radiation pattern disclosed in Figure 9A in certain circumstances.
Specifically, Liu describes the radiation patterns depicted in Figures 9A and
1 IB as the radiation pattern’s far field electric components. Liu 1150. Liu
discloses it is generally “desired that the RFID tags respond to the near field
pattern, but not the far field pattern.” Id. Accordingly, Liu provides
descriptions of different far field radiation patterns that may limit the far
field radiation patterns activating RFID tags based on the constraints of the
system. See Liu H 151—152 (describing the general shape of the radiation
pattern in Figures 9 and the potential to initiate undesired simultaneous
responses from different RFID tags), 153 (explaining how changing certain
configurations of the disclosed antenna array can help “reduce the far field
pattern, and thereby reduce the probability” of undesired simultaneous
reading of multiple RFID tags), 154—162 (explaining modifications to an
antenna array to reduce the far field pattern, including modifications
generating the pattern disclosed in Figures 11). Thus, although Liu is
directed to using multiple antennas, Liu describes the particular antenna
configurations resulting in the patterns depicted in Figures 9 and 11 as
alternative configurations. Liu does not discuss, or appear to contemplate,
combining two such antennas to effectively create a single antenna unit with
overlapping readable ranges.
Additionally, the proposed modification would not result in the
configuration as claimed. In particular, combining the far field electric
components of Liu’s radiation patterns disclosed in Figures 9A and 1 IB
does not, on its face, teach the in a plane limitation. As discussed above, the
6
Appeal 2015-005676
Application 12/498,669
radiation pattern of Figure 11 is intended to minimize the probability of
activating an RFID tag on Liu’s conveyor belt. See Liu 1156. Liu describes
the radiation pattern of Figure 9 as having a large gain (approximately 13
dB) in the Z direction at the conveyor belt center, whereas the radiation
pattern of Figure 11 has a small gain (approximately 2 dB) in the Z direction
at the belt center. Id. Liu further explains that Figure 1 IB’s radiation
pattern has two main lobes with a gain approximately 3 dB less than the gain
of the main lobe depicted in Figure 9’s radiation pattern. Id. Thus, it is not
clear from the Examiner’s findings that the antenna configurations whose
radiation patterns are depicted in Figures 9 and 11 could be arranged to
produce the two readable ranges configured as recited in claim 1.
On this record, we find the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants. Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Oget and Liu teaches or suggests the configuration of
readable ranges as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately
recited in independent claim 17. Dependent claims 2-4 and 11—16
ultimately depend from, and incorporate the limitations recited in, claim 1.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—4 and 11—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Because this issue is dispositive of the Appeal, we do not address
Appellants’ other arguments.
DECISION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1—4 and 11—17.
REVERSED
7