Ex parte Ovard

• Decision Date: 16 November 2006
• Docket Number: 073,Appeal 2006-2048,Application 09/265
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
• Parties: Ex parte DAVID K. OVARD and ROY GREEFF

Ex parte DAVID K. OVARD and ROY GREEFF

Appeal No. 2006-2048

Application No. 09/265, 073

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

November 16, 2006

ON BRIEF

This Opinion is Not binding Precedent of the Board.

Before RUGGIERO, BARRY, and MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY Administrative Patent Judge.

A patent examiner rejected claims 1-42, 46, and 49-66. The appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We affirm-in-part.

I. BACKGROUND

The invention at issue on appeal concerns wireless interrogation. Wireless interrogation systems are used to monitor inventories. In such an application, a radio frequency identification device ("RFID") is attached to an object of interest. Responsive to receipt of a polling signal, the RFID outputs a signal that identifies the presence or location of itself and the attached object. (Spec. at 2.)

For their part, the appellants desire to communicate with devices located at "greater distances in particular applications." (Id.) Accordingly, their wireless interrogation system features an interrogator for generating a forward link signal. Cabling carries the signal to a communication station that generates a wireless signal corresponding to the forward link signal and transmits the wireless signal to at least one remote identification device. (Abs.)

A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following claims.

1. A wireless communication system comprising:

an interrogator including a housing including circuitry configured to generate a forward link communication signal;

communication circuitry configured to communicate the forward link communication signal; and

a communication station remotely located with respect to the housing and configured to receive the forward link communication signal from the communication circuitry and to radiate a forward link wireless signal corresponding to the forward link communication signal;

a remote communication device configured to receive the forward link wireless signal; and

wherein the circuitry of the housing comprises a transmitter configured to generate the forward link communication signal comprising a modulated signal.

26. An interrogator of a radio frequency identification system comprising:

a housing including circuitry configured to generate a forward link communication signal; and

a driver amplifier coupled with the circuitry and configured to increase the power of the forward Iink communication signal;

a coaxial RF cable outside of the housing and coupled with the driver amplifier and configured to communicate the forward link communication signal; and a communication station remotely located with respect to the housing and including: automatic gain control circuitry coupled with the coaxial RF cable and configured to monitor the power of the forward link communication signal, compare the power with a predetermined threshold value, and adjust the power of the forward link communication signal responsive to the comparison;

a power amplifier coupled with the automatic gain control circuitry and configured to increase the power of the forward link communication signal; and

an antenna coupled with the power amplifier and configured to radiate a forward Iink wireless signal corresponding to the forward Iink communication signal.

49. An interrogator of a wireless communication system comprising:

a housing including circuitry configured to generate a forward Iink communication signal;

communication circuitry outside of the housing and coupled with the circuitry of the housing and configured to communicate the forward Iink communication signal;

a communication station remotely Iocated with respect to the housing and including an antenna coupled with the communication circuitry and configured to radiate a forward Iink wireless signal corresponding to the forward Iink communication signal; and

wherein the communication circuitry includes a coaxial RF cable.

50. An interrogator of a wireless communication system comprising:

a housing including circuitry configured to generate a forward Iink communication signal;

communication circuitry outside of the housing and coupled with the circuitry of the housing and configured to communicate the forward Iink communication signal;

a communication station remotely Iocated with respect to the housing and including an antenna coupled with the communication circuitry and configured to radiate a forward Iink wireless signal corresponding to the forward Iink communication signal; and

wherein the communication circuitry includes a plurality of transceivers individually coupled with one of the housing and the communication station.

Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 16-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 33-37, 41, 42, 51-53, 55-57, and 64-65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5, 842, 118 ("Wood"); U.S. Patent No. 5, 649, 296 ("MacLellan"); and U.S. Patent No. 3, 733, 602 ("Cuckler"). Claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 23, 26, 30-32, 38-40, 46, and 54 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Wood; MacLellan; Cuckler; and U.S. Patent No. 5, 799, 010 ("Lomp"). Claims 9, 10, 49, and 50 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Wood; MacLellan; Cuckler; and U.S. Patent No. 6, 353, 729 ("Bassirat"). Claims 58-63 and 66 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Wood; MacLellan; Cuckler; and U.S. Patent No. 6, 084, 530 ("Pidwerbetsky").

II. OPINION

Our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:

• claims 49 and 50

• claims 26 and 46

• claims 1-25, 27-42, and 51-66.

A. Claims 49 and 50

"When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Sep. 30, 2004).

Here, the appellants argue claims 49 and 50, which are subject to the same ground of rejection, as a group. (Appeal Br. at 6-16, 21.) Therefore, we select claim 49 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeals of the group. "With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we focus on the following three points of contention therebetween," Ex Parte Massingill, No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004):

- motivation to combine Wood and MacLellan

- separation of modulation and transmission

- relevance of Cuckler.

1. Motivation to Combine Wood and MacLellan

The examiner finds, "MacLellan teaches a communication station to communicate the remote device to extend the range of communication." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants "have failed to uncover any teachings in the prior art to support the bald allegation . . . that MacLellan extends the range of communication." (Reply Br. at 3.)

"The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A suggestion to combine teachings from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).

Here, we find that Wood relates to "[r]adio frequency (wireless) communications systems," (col. 1, l. 10), that employ "[r]adio frequency identification devices," (id. at l. 62), i.e., RFIDs. We also find that MacLellan "relates to wireless communication systems. . . ." (Col. 1, l. 13.) More specifically, the latter reference discloses "an RFID system that achieves synchronization rapidly, even with a relatively low-speed Downlink and having a relatively high-speed Uplink to send the necessary Tag data rapidly even in the presence of multiple Tags in the reading field." (Col. 3, ll. 17-21.) MacLellan adds that its wireless communication system is "able to a) have the Tag detect the presence of the Interrogator in a very short period of time, and b) have the Tag to Interrogator data rate be sufficiently large such that the communications can be completed within the time period available." (Col. 2, ll. 62-66.)

Regarding the examiner's finding of motivation, MacLellan teaches that "[a]n Application Processor 101 communicates over Local Area Network (LAN) 102 to a plurality of Interrogators 103-104." (Col. 3, ll. 28-30.) Of course, "'[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed. . . .'" In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 U.S.P.Q. 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 U.S.P.Q. 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 U.S.P.Q. 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). Here, we find that those skilled in the art would have known that employing a local area network extends a range of communications to the (local) area encompassed by the LAN.

Because MacLellan's teachings offer an extended range of...