Ruizhang Technology Limited Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2020

2019002620 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2020)

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.
14/845,238 09/03/2015 Chang-Chi LIU 03424.P116US2 7170
8791 7590 09/11/2020
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
TANG, RONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2111
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2020 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHAING-CHI LIU and STEVE WANG

Appeal 2019-0026201
Application 14/845,238
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We REVERSE.

1 This application was filed on September 3, 2015 and claims the benefit of
Chinese Patent Application No. 201510523770.9 filed on August 24, 2015.
Spec. ¶ 1.
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ruizhang
Technology Ltd., Co. Appeal Br. 1
Appeal 2019-002620
Application 14/845,238

2
SPECIFICATION
Appellant’s Specification relates to “error detection and error
correction techniques for RFID devices and systems.” Spec. ¶ 2. An RFID
system usually includes tags and readers, and an RFID tag typically includes
an antenna, an integrated circuit, and memory. Id. ¶ 3. A product
manufacturer can attach an RFID tag to a product and can also initialize the
tag’s memory to include a unique identification code and specific details
about the tagged product, such as its make, color, and price. Id. ¶ 5.
In an RFID system, a tag-read rate of approximately 100% is required.
Spec. ¶ 6. A system may not achieve such a read rate due to data corruption
and bit-flips in the tag’s memory, which can result from design and
manufacturing variations. Id. ¶¶ 6–7.
In the Specification, both user data and tag manufacturing data can be
stored in the tag’s memory. Spec. ¶ 11. The user data can be programmed
by a user (e.g., the entity attaching the tag to a product). Id. The
manufacturing data is generally programmed by the tag’s manufacturer and
cannot be programmed by the user. Id.
The RFID tag can detect and correct errors in its data. Spec. ¶ 11. If
the tag detects an error, the tag can transmit its manufacturing data to a
reader, which can determine whether the error was caused by a
manufacturing defect, in which case, the reader can determine the source or
location of the manufacturing defect and inform the tag manufacturer. Id.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 9, 12, 19, and 23 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
Appeal 2019-002620
Application 14/845,238

3
1. An error correction method for use with a radio frequency
identification (RFID) tag comprised of an antenna and an
integrated circuit (IC), the method comprising:
receiving, via the antenna, a signal for at least one of activating
the tag or interrogating the tag, wherein the IC comprises
memory storing data associated with the tag, wherein the stored
data includes manufacturing data unique to the tag and related
to the manufacturing of the tag, and wherein the IC is configured
to perform at least one of error detection or error correction on at
least some of the stored data, wherein the manufacturing data is
to determine if a detected or corrected error is a result of a
manufacturing defect to the tag or the source or location of the
manufacturing defect;
detecting, by the IC, that one or more bits of the stored data has
an error after the tag is activated; and
transmitting the manufacturing data in response to one or more
hits of the stored data being detected with an error.
Appeal Br. 9–10, 15.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Brandt US 2007/0063029 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
Kawaguchi US 8,774,710 B2 July 8, 2014
Kim US 2011/0037568 A1 Feb. 17, 2011
Teraura US 2012/0278676 A1 Nov. 1, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 1–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Kawaguchi, Teraura, Brandt, and Kim. Final Act.
3.
Appeal 2019-002620
Application 14/845,238

4
OPINION
A. Claims 1–8
Appellant argues that the references relied upon by the Examiner do
not teach or suggest the stored manufacturing data recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 4. The Examiner maps the recited stored
manufacturing data to (i) the electronic product code (EPC) disclosed in
Kawaguchi and (ii) the electronic product data disclosed in Brandt. Final
Act. 4, 6. Further, the Examiner maps the recited manufacturing data to the
electronic product code in Teraura. Ans. 6. In addition, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to
treat the “EPC as manufacturing data unique to a RFID tag and related to the
manufacturing of the tag, and substitute the item” for the RFID tag “to
prevent occurrence of data error” on the RFID tag. Id. at 7.
Appellant argues that (i) the recited manufacturing data does not
encompass the disclosed electronic product codes and (ii) the Examiner has
not set forth a sufficient basis for determining that it would have been
obvious to include manufacturing data in the disclosed electronic product
codes. Reply Br. 4–7.
We agree with Appellant. The Specification distinguishes electronic
product codes and manufacturing data. Spec. ¶ 63. In the Specification, an
electronic product code “is an identifier for a good or product that the tag is
attached to that provides a unique identity for that good or product.” Id.
Further, in the Specification, codes identifying the products to which RFID
tags are attached are programmed by the product’s manufacturer (the user of
the RFID system), not the tag manufacturer. Id. ¶ 5. In contrast,
manufacturing data (as the term is used in the Specification) is programmed
Appeal 2019-002620
Application 14/845,238

5
by a tag manufacturer, not a user. Id. ¶¶ 11, 52. Manufacturing data
includes information, such as the wafer used to produce the IC for a tag, the
manufacturing process for that wafer, and the location of the die on that
wafer. Id. ¶ 63. Manufacturing data is “generally not useful to users of
system 100.” Id. ¶ 52.
None of the disclosures cited by the Examiner indicate that the
electronic product codes that are disclosed by Kawaguchi, Brandt, or
Teraura contain data related to manufacturing a tag. Instead, the cited
disclosures indicate that these electronic product codes, like those discussed
in the Specification, identify the goods or products to which a tag is
attached. Kawaguchi states “EPC is a simple compact identifier that
uniquely identifies objects (items, cases, pallets, locations, etc.) in the supply
chain.” Kawaguchi, 4:38–40. Brant discloses writing electronic product
information to an RFID tag associated with a part to track that part. Brant
¶ 44. And Teraura discloses that its electronic product code provides
information about an object to which RFID tag 70C is affixed. Teraura ¶ 98.
None of these disclosures teach or suggest the storage of data about the
manufacture of the involved RFID tags.
As for the Examiner’s determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would modify an EPC to include manufacturing data, more of a rationale is
needed for that modification. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would make that modification to prevent the occurrence of
data error on RFID tags. Id. The Examiner, however, does not set forth any
support for that finding. Id. And it is not apparent from the cited prior art
disclosures why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been so motivated.
Appeal 2019-002620
Application 14/845,238

6
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 nor
of claims 2–8, which depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claim
Appendix).
B. Claims 9–29.
Each of independent claims 9, 12, and 19 recites storing or stored
manufacturing data related to the manufacture of an RFID tag. Specifically,
claim 9 recites an error correction method that stores “manufacturing data
unique to the tag and related to the manufacturing of the tag.” Appeal Br. 16
(Claim Appendix). Claim 12 recites a radio frequency identification system
with stored “manufacturing data unique to the tag and related to the
manufacturing of the tag.” Id. at 17. Claim 19 recites a radio frequency tag
with a memory storing “manufacturing data unique to the tag and related to
the manufacturing of the tag.” Id. at 18–19. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 9, 12, and 19 and of claims 10, 11, 13–18, and 20–29
(which each depend directly or indirectly from one of claims 9, 12, and 19)
for the same reasons as for claim 1. Id. at 16–21.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References  Affirmed Reversed
1–29 103 Kawaguchi, Teraura,
Brandt, and Kim
1–29

REVERSED