Ex Parte Aminger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12466148 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/466,148
59383 7590
Yudell Isidore PLLC
Eustace P. Isidore
FILING DATE
05/14/2009
09/22/2016
7301 Ranch Rd 620 N Ste 155-157
Austin, TX 78726
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans-Juergen Aminger
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DE920080134US 1 5222
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
Patents@yudellisidore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-JUERGEN AMIN GER, DIRK BOLTE,
HERWIG ELFERING, and ADOLF MARTENS 1
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10-18. Claims 3, 6, and 9 are
canceled. App. Br. 13-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose the use of a Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) Controller within the server system transmits a location request to a
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
RFID Sensor. Abstract. The RFID Sensor identifies devices in a server
system and returns signal strength and location information of the devices to
an Embedded Controller that calculates its own current location. Id.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 2, and 10, reproduced beimv vvith key limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A method of determining connectionless location
identification information of devices within a server system, the
method comprising:
at an Embedded Controller, issuing a location request to
a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Sensor;
receiving signal strength and location information from
the RFID Sensor, wherein the signal strength and location
information includes signal strength and location information
of one or more nearby RFID tags from a plurality of RFID
tags;
calculating a current physical location of the Embedded
Controller from the received signal strength and location
information;
in response to calculating the current physical location of
the Embedded Controller, locally storing, on the Embedded
Controller, the current physical location of the Embedded
Controller;
providing, to a support element, the location information
and the current physical location of the Embedded Controller;
and receiving, at the support element, the signal strength and
location information of the one or more RFID tags and the
current physical location of the Embedded Controller, wherein
the signal strength and location information of the one or more
RFID tags and the current physical location of the Embedded
Controller in response to being received by the support element
enables the support element to perform the functions of:
2
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
calculating a unique fixed IP address based on the
current physical location of the Embedded Controller;
in response to calculating the unique fixed IP
address based on the current physical location of the
Embedded Controller, assigning the unique fixed IP
address to the Embedded Controller; and
storing, on the support element, the unique fixed IP
address of the Embedded Controller for subsequent
communications with the Embedded Controller.
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the location request enables
the RFID Sensor to perform the functions of:
at the RFID Sensor, transmitting a radio frequency (RF)
ping to nearby RFID tags, wherein a RFID tag corresponds to a
connection location within the server system;
receiving a location identification from the nearby RFID
tags, wherein the location identification includes a frame
location and a position location; and
transmitting signal strength and location information of
the nearby RFID tags to the Embedded Controller.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the current physical
location is a first location, the method further comprising:
always assigning a first fixed IP address every time the
Embedded Controller is in the first location; and
always assigning a second IP address every time the
Embedded Controller is in a second location.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rothman et al. (US 2008/
3
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
0114865 Al, published May 15, 2008) and Chen et al. (US 7,929,535 B2,
issued Apr. 19, 2011).2 Final Act. 3-18.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 7 as being directed to non-
statutory subject matter?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rothman and
Chen teaches or suggests "receiving signal strength and location information
from the RFID Sensor, wherein the signal strength and location information
includes signal strength and location information of one or more nearby
RFID tags from a plurality of RFID tags," as recited in claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rothman and
Chen teaches or suggest "receiving a location identification from the nearby
RFID tags, wherein the location identification includes a frame location and
a position location," as recited in claim 2?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rothman and
Chen teaches or suggests "always assigning a first fixed IP address every
time the Embedded Controller is in the first location; and always assigning a
second IP address every time the Embedded Controller is in a second
location," as recited in claim 1 O?
2 The Examiner erroneously lists claims 1-11 in the statement of the
rejection (Final Act. 3), but properly includes all pending claims in the body
of the rejection (id. at 3-18). We hold this typographical error harmless.
4
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
ANALYSIS
Claim 7
Appellants include in the Claims Appendix, a version of claim 7
directed to a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" (App. Br.
14-15 (emphasis added)) that appears to be an attempt to limit the scope of
claim 7 to exclude "a transitory storage medium such as a signal" (Final Act.
2). However, the claim 7 amendment with the term "non-transitory" in the
preamble (Amend. after Final 5 (May 16, 1013)) was not entered (Adv. Act.
1 (June 6, 2013)). Because claim 7 is still directed to "[a] computer-readable
storage medium," and because Appellants do not show error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, we summarily affirm the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 1. In the event of further prosecution, we
recommend the Examiner further ascertain whether claims 8 and 16-18,
which depend from claim 7, and which are still directed to computer-
readable storage media, similarly encompass transitory storage media.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Rothman's use of
transceivers that transmit RFID signals, which have varying strength when
received, teaches or suggests receiving signal strength and location
information from the RFID Sensor, wherein the signal strength and location
information includes signal strength and location information of one or
more nearby RFID tags from a plurality of RFID tags. Final Act. 3 (citing,
e.g., Rothman ,-i,-i 18, 21 ); see also Ans. 3--4.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Rothman does not
disclose receiving both signal strength and location information from an
RFID sensor. Br. 7. Rather, Appellants argue, "Rothman only provides
5
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
receiving a unique identifier from a transceiver." Id. Appellants argue
"unique identifiers as is known in the art are primarily utilized to provide
differentiation between different objects. Thus, receiving a 'unique
identifier' from a[ n] RFID tag is not suggestive of receiving a location
identification from a[ n] RFID tag." Br. 8.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly finds, an identifier in Rothman "can be correlated to the location of
the RFID transceiver." Ans. 3--4 (citing Rothman iJ 21). We agree with the
Examiner that "[b ]ecause the unique identifier of the RFID transceiver is
correlated to the location of the RFID transceiver ... the reception by the
computing platform of the unique identifier from the RFID transceiver
constitutes the reception of 'location information."' Ans. 4.
We note that the correlation of Rothman's unique identifier to an
RFID transceiver location is similar to the use of a unique city/state name
(e.g., "Alexandria, Virginia") that correlates with alternative forms of
location information (e.g., 38° 48' 17.4082" N 77° 2' 48.917" W). Because
the unique identifier can be used to look up alternative forms of location
information (which, in certain contexts may be more valuable than the
unique identifier by itself), the unique identifier is location information.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Rothman and Chen teaches or suggests "receiving signal strength and
location information from the RFID Sensor, wherein the signal strength and
location information includes signal strength and location information of one
or more nearby RFID tags from a plurality of RFID tags," as recited in claim
1.
6
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18, which Appellants do
not argue separately. Br. 7.
Claims 2, 5, and 8
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner finds Rothman's use of an
identification field that represents a site, building, lab, etc., and Rothman's
representation of a rack shelf and slot within the rack teaches or suggests
receiving a location identification from the nearby RFID tags, wherein the
location identification includes a frame location and a position location.
Final Act. 6 (citing Rothman iii! 19, 37-38).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Rothman [is]
completely devoid of any device receiving any location information directly
from nearby RFID tags." Br. 7. We note that claim 2 does not recite
receiving location information directly from nearby RFID tags. Moreover,
as discussed above, Rothman' s use of RFID transmissions that include
unique identifiers that can be correlated to locations, teaches or suggests
location information. Such identifiers combined with Rothman's use of
alternative, more explicit forms of location information (e.g., site, building,
etc.) as part of an identifier teaches or suggests receiving location
information that contains more explicit details from an RFID tag. Ans. 4-6.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Rothman' s "shelf
location is functionally equivalent to a frame location, and the slot location
is functionally equivalent to a position location." Ans. 9. Rothman's shelf
and slot locations are examples of more forms of detailed location
information. Thus, the Examiner's findings show that Rothman teaches or
suggests a location identification (e.g., a unique identifier) received from an
7
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
RFID tag, wherein the location identification includes a frame location and a
position location (i.e., where the unique identifier includes detailed location
details such as frame and slot locations). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Rothman and Chen teaches or suggest
"receiving a location identification from the nearby RFID tags, wherein the
location identification includes a frame location and a position location," as
recited in claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 2, and claims 5 and 8, which Appellants do not argue separately.
Br. 8.
Claims 10, 13, and 16
In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner finds Chen's encoding of
geographic information for a network device in a Network ID segment
and/or a Host ID segment of an IPv6 address teaches or suggests always
assigning a first fixed IP address every time the Hmbedded Controller is in
the first location and always assigning a second IP address every time the
Embedded Controller is in a second location. Final Act. 12 (citing Chen
col. 1, 11. 39--41, col. 6, 11. 28--40, 54-61, and col. 7, 11. 14-22).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Chen clearly
provides that only a subset portion of bits within an IPv6 address would be
the same whenever a device was in a same location." Br. 9. Appellants
submit that the selection of which bits (i.e., what constitutes the subset) can
vary "depending on availability and other factors." Id. Thus, Appellants
argue, "Chen does not suggest assigning a same exact entire IP address,
including non-location information portions, every time a device is in a
particular location." Id.
8
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because, although Chen notes
that different implementations of Chen's method can use different parts of
an IPv6 address to encode geographic location (Chen col. 4, 11. 24-27), a
particular implementation of Chen's teachings can reserve a subset of bits
(id. col. 4, 11. 27-35). See Ans. 13. Moreover, the Examiner correctly finds
that where the non-geographical information (e.g., network ID) of an IPv6
address is fixed, the combination of the fixed information with encoded
geographic location information "will always result in the same fixed IP
address being assigned to the network device whenever it is connected to
that network" at a particular location. Ans. 12 (citing Chen col. 6, 11. 41-
45). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Rothman and Chen teaches or suggests "always assigning a first fixed IP
address every time the Embedded Controller is in the first location; and
always assigning a second IP address every time the Embedded Controller is
in a second location," as recited in claim 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 10, and claims 13 and 16, which Appellants do not argue
separately. Br. 10.
9
Appeal2014-005313
Application 12/466,148
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
10