I'm looking for prior art against US patent application 20130015958 (serial number 13/481,141).

Truncation, compression, and encryption of rfid tag communications

Claim 61

  1. A radio frequency identification (RFID) tag system, comprising: a storage module storing information comprising data and instructions; a logic module executing the instructions to: determine a mode of tag operation from a plurality of modes; read the data from the storage module to determine a response to a received signal based on the mode of tag operation; determine one of an unaltered version of the data and an altered version of the data based on the mode of tag operation for a response to the received signal; and provide a response with one of the unaltered version of the data and the altered version based on the determine step, wherein the response comprises an EPCglobal Header bit pattern indicative of the mode of tag operation.
  • As I see it, on 11-15-2013 patent owner cancelled claims 1-83 in the application and added new claims 84-99, see Helen's answer below. – Daniel K. Nov 24 '13 at 21:18

Here is prior art against US patent application 20130015958

enter image description here

| improve this answer | |
  • Since the document in question is an application there is no patent to "invalidate" yet. It is related to a granted patent that has somewhat different claims. – George White Sep 23 '13 at 21:49
  • @GeorgeWhite, nobody said that there is a patent yet. They were talking about claims from an application. Is it incorrect to say that the claims of an application are "invalid" when they are anticipated by prior-art? – Daniel K. Nov 24 '13 at 21:14
  • @Helen, that's great. How did you come up with this full blown analysis just 14 minutes after the question was posted? – Daniel K. Nov 24 '13 at 21:21
  • I may too focused on terminology but yes, I do think is is incorrect to call claims in an application invalid. I would say they are not patentable or not allowable. – George White Nov 24 '13 at 23:31
  • @GeorgeWhite, I completely get your point. Patent application drafting is an "exacting" art! As you are interested in proper terminology, maybe you could have a look at my question patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5463 where I inquire about proper wording. – Daniel K. Nov 25 '13 at 20:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.