Ex Parte Abraham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2014

12019088 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHERIAN ABRAHAM, FRED EUBANKS,
and WAYNE L. LAFFITTE
____________________

Appeal 2011-010115
Application 12/019,088
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010115
Application 12/019,088

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to an inventory management system
and method including a computer coupled to a radio-frequency identification
(RFID) reader data network having RFID readers configured to read tag
identifiers from RFID tags associated with equipment to be deployed to a
target network (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An inventory management and network operations system,
comprising:
a radio-frequency identification (RFID) reader data network having
RFID readers configured to read tag identifiers from RFID tags associated
with equipment to be deployed as part of a target network; and
a computer coupled to said RFID reader data network and said target
network and configured to retrieve said tag identifiers from said RFID reader
data network and network identifiers from equipment deployed in said target
network, associate said tag identifiers and said network identifiers and
display both said tag identifiers and said network identifiers of at least some
of said equipment to a user.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reber US 6,032,195 Feb. 29, 2000
Appeal 2011-010115
Application 12/019,088

3
Howarth US 7,422,152 B2 Sep. 9, 2008
(filed Dec. 9, 2004)
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Howarth in view of Reber.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
concluding that the combination of Howarth and Reber teaches or would
have suggested “a radio-frequency identification (RFID) reader data network
having RFID readers configured to read tag identifiers from RFID tags
associated with equipment to be deployed as part of a target network”
(claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, service providers are responsible for
establishing and maintaining operating networks including deployment of
equipment to target networks (forward supply chain 110 including
manufacturing plant 111, a supplier warehouse 112, a value-added reseller
(VAR) warehouse 113, a plug-in card system (PICS) center 114, and a
garage 115 representing fixed locations where equipment may be made or
stored); wherein, the equipment includes but is not limited to cables,
network level equipment, and end-user equipment, such as set-top boxes,
converters, modems, and routers (Fig. 1; Spec. ¶¶ [0002], [0018]-[0020]).
Appeal 2011-010115
Application 12/019,088

4
Howarth
2. Howarth discloses an RFID network 600 that manages
inventory 627 over a network 625; the RFID network 600 includes
warehouse 601, factory 605, retail outlet 610, financial institution 615,
headquarters 620, and/or many other elements (Fig. 6; col. 10, ll. 33-40).
3. Truck 675 delivers products 627 having RFID tags to
warehouse 601; wherein, a RFID reader 652 reads the RFID tag and
transmits an EPC code to switch 660, which is connected to network 625,
such as the Internet, through gateway 650 (col. 10, ll. 41-51).
Reber
4. Reber discloses a data reader 30 that reads an optical code 14
from a network navigation device 12 and transmits a message associated
with the optical code 14 through an optical interface 32 or an Input/Output
(I/O) interface 52 to an I/O interface 54 in communication with a network
access apparatus 50 (including a processor in communication with at least
one input device, a memory, and at least one storage device) (col. 3, ll. 14-
16; col. 4, ll. 25-28, 38-40).
5. The network access apparatus 50 can have a variety of forms,
including but not limited to, a general purpose computer, a network
computer, a network television, an Internet television, an Internet telephone,
a portable wireless device, a television receiver, a game player, a video
recorder, and an audio component (col. 4, ll. 32-37).
6. Data reader 30 includes a processor 34 having a personal agent
enabler 46, which sends a message to the network access apparatus 50
directing it to retrieve and execute a destination specific software agent that
Appeal 2011-010115
Application 12/019,088

5
facilitates the completion of a task associated with destination 20 (col. 4, ll.
5-12).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20
Appellants contend that “the cited portion of Howarth teaches
products 627 with RFID tags attached are NOT deployed to network 625;”
“[i]nstead, network 625 receives EPC information from the RFID tags on the
products 627 delivered to or leaving warehouse 601” (App. Br. 6).
Appellants argue that “[t]here is no teaching in the cited portions of Howarth
that the products 627 are deployed to, or for that matter, are deployed as part
of, any network” (id.). Appellants finally contend that “[t]he cited portion of
Reber clearly teaches the use of optical information to be read by an optical
reader;” therefore, Reber does “NOT teach an RFID reader reading and
RFID tag associated with equipment to be deployed as part of a target
network” (App. Br. 7).
However, the Examiner finds that Howarth teaches “a radio-frequency
identification (RFID) reader data network” “having RFID readers (RFID
reader 652[)] … configured to read tag identifiers from RFID tags associated
with equipment (products 627, figure 6) to be deployed to a target network”
(Ans. 10). The Examiner further finds that Reber teaches, in response to
“data reader (30) … read[ing] the optical code (14) from the network
navigation device (12),” “processor (34) of the data reader (30) provides a
personal agent enabler to direct a network access apparatus (50) to retrieve
and execute a destination specific software agent via a input/output interface
Appeal 2011-010115
Application 12/019,088

6
(54) to the network access apparatus (50) of the electronic data network
(10)” (Ans. 9).
Appellants’ argument “[t]here is no teaching in the cited portions of
Howarth that the products 627 are deployed to, or for that matter, are
deployed as part of, any network,” is not commensurate in scope with the
specific language of claim 1 (App. Br. 6). In particular, claim 1 does not
recite such “products are deployed” as Appellants argue.
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 recites RFID readers “configured to” read tag identifiers
from RFID tags “associated with” equipment “to be deployed as part of a
target network.” The Specification provides that a target network is a group
of fixed locations where equipment can be made or stored, such as a
manufacturing plant or warehouse; where, the equipment includes, but is not
limited to, cables, network level equipment, and end-user equipment, such as
set-top boxes, converters, modems, and routers (FF 1).
We find such “configured to” language merely represents a statement
of intended use of the RFID readers comprised in the network, which does
not limit the claim. Additionally, we find the recited “to be deployed”
language merely represents a statement of intended use of the equipment,
which does not limit the claim (Claim 1). Particularly, an intended use will
not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which
the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-
Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we give claim 1
its broadest reasonable interpretation as merely requiring RFID readers
Appeal 2011-010115
Application 12/019,088

7
capable of reading tag identifiers relating to equipment capable of being
deployed in a group of fixed locations.
Howarth is directed to an RFID network including, but not limited to
a warehouse, factory, and/or retail outlet (FF 2). An RFID reader reads the
RFID tag on products and transmits an EPC code through switch 660 which
connects to network 625 (FF 3). We find no error in the Examiner’s finding
Howarth’s system comprises an RFID network having RFID readers that
read tag identifiers from RFID tags relating to equipment capable of being
deployed to a group of fixed locations (Ans. 10).
In addition, Reber is directed to a data reader that reads an optical
code from a network navigation device and transmits a message associated
with the optical code to a network access apparatus directing it to retrieve
and execute a destination specific software agent that facilitates the
completion of a task associated with a destination or target (FF 4-6). We
find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the optical code from the
network navigation device is associated with equipment to be deployed as
part of a target network (Ans. 10).
Although Appellants argue that Reber does “NOT teach an RFID
reader reading and RFID tag” (App. Br. 7), the Examiner relies upon
Howarth for such teaching (Ans. 10). The issue here is not whether Reber
discloses an RFID reader but rather whether a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading Howarth, would be discouraged from associating a tag with
equipment to be deployed as part of a target network, as taught by Howarth,
in Reber’s RFID system. The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
Appeal 2011-010115
Application 12/019,088

8
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Howarth in view of Reber. Further,
independent claims 8 and 15 having similar claim language and claims 2-7,
9-14, and 16-20 (depending from claims 1, 8, and 15), which have not been
argued separately, fall with claim 1.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

bab