Ex Parte Amador et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2014

11550465 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ERICK S. AMADOR, RICK A. HAMILTON II,
PHILIP K. MULLINS, and CLIFFORD A. PICKOVER
________________

Appeal 2012-003915
Application 11/550,465
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ANDREW J. DILLON, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-25. Claim 8 is canceled. App. Br. 4. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22-25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chung (US 2006/0055552 A1; published
Mar. 16, 2006) and Waxman (US 2007/0259677 A1; published Nov. 8,
2007). Ans. 11-26.
Appeal 2012-003915
Application 11/550,465

2
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Chung, Waxman, and Bradin (US 6,566,997 B1; issued May 20, 2003).
Ans. 26-28.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Chung, Waxman, and Preiss (US 2008/0025307 A1; published Jan. 31,
2008). Ans. 28-30.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chung,
Waxman, and Frerking (US 2006/0188116 A1; published Aug. 24, 2006).
Ans. 31.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chung,
Waxman, and Chaco (US 5,594,786; issued Jan. 14, 1997). Ans. 31-32.
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates “to identifying a RFID tag and
transmitting a message intended for the RFID tag to the RFID tag and
displaying the message with a RFID tag reader.” Spec., ¶ 1. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A computer implemented process for transmitting a text
message for storage on a RFID tag, the computer implemented process
comprising:
providing a plurality of RFID transceivers, a RFID tag database, and a
plurality of RFID tags, each RFID tag having a transmitter, a memory, and a
receiver, wherein the RFID tag database catalogs all known RFID tag
identifiers and all text messages associated with each of the plurality of
Appeal 2012-003915
Application 11/550,465

3
RFID tags and wherein each of the plurality of RFID tags are attached to a
person or an object;
continuously polling, by each RFID transceiver, for RFID tags in
range, and responsive to finding a particular RFID tag that is in a range of a
particular RFID transceiver at a particular location, determining a location of
the one of the person and the object to which the particular RFID tag is
attached as the particular location, reading the particular RFID tag’s
identifier, querying the RFID tag database to determine whether a
corresponding text message is pending for the particular RFID tag’s
identifier, and when a corresponding text message is pending for the
particular RFID tag’s identifier, sending the corresponding text message to
the particular RFID tag having the particular RFID tag’s identifier; and
responsive to the location of the one of the person and the object
having changed from a first location associated with a first RFID transceiver
to the particular location associated with the particular RFID transceiver,
changing a content of the corresponding text message to a different message
configured for the second location.

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, AND
22-25 OVER CHUNG AND WAXMAN
The Examiner finds that Chung and Waxman teach all limitations of
claim 1. Ans. 11-13. The Examiner relies on Waxman’s short messaging
service (SMS) to extend a local area network for teaching the recited
responsive to the location changing, changing a content of the corresponding
Appeal 2012-003915
Application 11/550,465

4
text message to a different message configured for the second location. Ans.
13 (citing Waxman, ¶¶ 1, 13, 22).
Appellants argue, among other arguments, that Waxman’s
“forwarding location-specific information” to “communication
areas” via an “SMS message” is not the same as “responsive to
the location of the one of the person and the object having
changed from a first location associated with a first RFID
transceiver to a second location associated with the particular
RFID transceiver, changing a content of the corresponding text
message to a different message configured for the second
location” as recited by claim 1. It is not the same because
“forwarding messages” about a set of “locations” is not the
same as “responsive to the location... changing to a second
location” changing “a content of the corresponding text
message to a different message configured for the second
location” as recited by claim 1.
App. Br. 13-14.
In response, the Examiner explains
Waxman teaches that when an RFID tag receives a message at a
second location, the message is different from the message the
tag would have received at a first location. The system of the
combination of Chung and Waxman changes the message
received by the RFID tag at a second location to a message
configured for the second location from a message configured
for the first location that would have been transmitted to the
RFID tag at the first location, as recited by Claim l.
Ans. 37-38.
Appellants’ arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
Chung and Waxman teach the recited responsive to the location changing,
changing a content of the corresponding text message to a different message
configured for the second location.
Appeal 2012-003915
Application 11/550,465

5
Waxman (¶ 1) describes an extended-local area system based on short
messaging service (SMS). Waxman (¶ 13) describes various modulation
techniques for wireless links.
Waxman (¶ 22) describes
the extended-local area system 200 may extend the coverage
area 225 by forwarding location-specific information to one or
more of the communication areas 235, 245, and/or 255 via SMS
message(s). By operating in a mesh network-like manner, the
subscriber stations 230, 240, 250, and/or 260 may distribute
location-specific information via SMS messages within the
extended-local area system 200.
The Examiner has not established that Waxman’s forwarding of
location-specific information via text message to an additional
communication area changes a content of the text message to a different
message configured for the second location as recited in claim 1. We agree
with Appellants that forwarding messages is not the same as the recited
responsive changing to the content of the text message. The Examiner’s
explanation (Ans. 37-38) that the system of the combination of Chung and
Waxman changes the message to a message configured for the second
location from a message configured for the first location may suggest that
the communication protocol changes (see Waxman, ¶ 22), but the Examiner
does not explain how or why the combined teachings of the references
suggest that the message content changes.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or
of claims 3-6, 22, and 23, which depend from claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
9, which recites
responsive to the location of the one of the person and the
object having changed from a first location associated with a
Appeal 2012-003915
Application 11/550,465

6
first RFID transceiver to a second location associated with the
particular RFID transceiver, changing a content of the
corresponding text message to a different message configured
for the second location,
or of claims 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, and 25, which depend from claim 9.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2 AND 10 OVER CHUNG, WAXMAN,
AND BRADIN
Claims 2 and 10 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively. The
Examiner does not find that Bradin overcomes the deficiencies of Chung and
Waxman with respect to claims 1 and 9. See Ans. 26-28.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 and
10.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7 AND 15 OVER CHUNG, WAXMAN,
AND PREISS
Claims 7 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively. The
Examiner does not find that Priess overcomes the deficiencies of Chung and
Waxman with respect to claims 7 and 15. See Ans. 28-30.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and
15.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 18 OVER CHUNG, WAXMAN, AND
FRERKING
Claim 18 depends from base claim 9. The Examiner does not find
that Frerking overcomes the deficiencies of Chung and Waxman with
respect to claim 9. See Ans. 31.
Appeal 2012-003915
Application 11/550,465

7
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 21 OVER CHUNG, WAXMAN, AND
CHACO
Claim 21 depends from claim 9. The Examiner does not find that
Chaco overcomes the deficiencies of Chung and Waxman with respect to
claim 9. See Ans. 31-32.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-25 is reversed.
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).

REVERSED

lp