Ex Parte BELLOWS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2019

14064119 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/064,119 10/26/2013 David E. BELLOWS
126568 7590 02/11/2019
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
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.
102390us01 1098
EXAMINER
FOXX, CHICO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2019 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID E. BELLOWS
Appeal2018-006539
Application 14/064, 119
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17, constituting all claims currently
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-006539
Application 14/064, 119
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to "an apparatus and method for
balancing the number of RFID reads to produce an appropriate quantity of
data." Spec. ,r 6. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in
italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
configuring, by a Radio Frequency ID (RFID) reader, each
of a plurality of antennas operating in the RFID reader to operate
in one of a first state and a second state opposite the first state;
configuring, by the RFID reader, each of the plurality of
antennas to alternate between operating ( 1) in a first session and
in one of the first and second states and (2) in a second session
and in the other of the first and second states; and
configuring, by the RFID reader, a first antenna to operate
in the first state during the first session, and to operate in the
second state during the second session, and a second antenna
adjacent to the first antenna to operate in the first state during
the second session and in the second state during the first session;
wherein during operation each of the plurality of antennas
is configured to read an RFID tag within a range of the antenna
when a state of the RFID tag for the session in which the antenna
is configured to operate matches the state in which the antenna is
configured to operate during the session and to switch the state
of the RFID tag to the opposite state for the session in which the
antenna is configured to operate.
REJECTION
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wilkinson (US 2014/0266617 Al,
published Sep. 28, 2014) and Kim (US 2010/0245054 Al, published Sep.
30, 2010). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2018-006539
Application 14/064, 119
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Wilkinson and Kim teaches or suggests "a first antenna" and "a second
antenna adjacent to the first antenna," as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claim 11?
The Examiner relies on the combination of Wilkinson and Kim to
teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3--4.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Wilkinson teaches a group of readers
(readers 203 and 204) that read particular areas that are adjacent to each
other. Final Act. 4 (citing Wilkinson Fig. 5, ,r,r 30, 32, 36); Ans. 3. The
Examiner further finds Kim teaches a reader device that controls the
operation of adjacent antennas. Final Act. 5 ( citing Kim Fig. 1 ); Ans. 3.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Wilkinson's
multiple readers into a single reader as in Kim "to minimize the amount of
RFID reader[ s] needed to perform the monitoring, thus providing a financial
savings for hardware expense." Final Act. 5; Ans. 3.
Appellant contends Wilkinson groups separate RFID tag readers 203
and 204, but readers 203 and 204 are not adjacent to one another. App.
Br. 6. Appellant contends the broadest reasonable interpretation,
incorporating the plain and ordinary meaning, of "adjacent" requires that
"two antennas that are adjacent to each other would not be divided by a wall,
be placed in separate groupings of antennas, or be detached/disconnected."
App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 2, 4. Appellant argues Wilkinson's groups of
readers 203 and 204 are separated by physical barriers and therefore are not
adjacent. App. Br. 6-7.
3
Appeal2018-006539
Application 14/064, 119
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's arguments.
Appellant's argument against Wilkinson alone does not rebut the
combination made by the Examiner under Wilkinson and Kim. 1 One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425
(CCPA 1981).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Wilkinson teaches a group
of readers (readers 203 and 204) that read particular areas that are adjacent
to each other. Ans. 3; see Wilkinson Fig. 5. Appellant identifies the
claimed "adjacent" is "an adjective that describes something that is next to
or adjoining something else." App. Br. 7. Wilkinson discloses readers
located in "a first area 501" and "a second area 502" with a "wall 503" that
"separate[ s] these two areas 501 and 502 with at least one door 504 serving
to provide a pathway from one area to the other by authorized associates."
Wilkinson ,r 29. In other words, Wilkinson teaches readers located in areas
that are adjoined through door 504. Appellant has not provided persuasive
argument that the claimed "adjacent" antennas, including antennas in
1 Appellant argues the Examiner's findings pertaining to Kim and the
combination of Wilkinson and Kim constitute a new ground of rejection.
Reply Br. 3--4. We disagree. See Final Act. 5. Moreover, if Appellant
believes the Examiner's Answer contained a new ground of rejection not
identified as such, Appellant should have filed a petition under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181 within two months from the mailing of the Examiner's Answer
requesting that the ground of rejection set forth in the answer be designated
as a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.40(a). Any allegation that an
Examiner's Answer contains a new ground of rejection not identified as such
is waived if not timely raised (i.e., by filing the petition within two months
of the answer) by way of a petition. 37 C.F.R. § 1.18 l(f).
4
Appeal2018-006539
Application 14/064, 119
adjoining spaces, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Wilkinson's
readers in adjoining spaces.
We further agree with the Examiner that Kim teaches a reader device
that controls the operation of adjacent antennas. Final Act. 5. The Examiner
finds Kim teaches a reader being connected to adjacent antennas similar to
the claimed adjacent areas. Ans. 3 ( citing Kim Fig. 1, Spec. Figs. 1, 2, 5).
For example, Kim discloses "master RFID/USN device 100 divides a
coverage area thereof and comprises a plurality of antennas," such as four
antennas, and the "first to fourth antennas 101 to 104 cover first to fourth
quadrants of the coverage area." Kim ,r,r 48--49; see Kim Fig. 1. In other
words, Kim teaches a reader device with antennas that are adjacent (located
in four quadrants, where quadrant 101 is adjacent to quadrants 102 and 104,
quadrant 102 is adjacent to quadrants 101 and 103, quadrant 103 is adjacent
to quadrants 102 and 104, and quadrant 104 is adjacent to quadrants 102 and
101).
Additionally, we find that the Examiner has articulated how the
claimed features are met by the proposed combination of Wilkinson and
Kim with some rational underpinning consistent with the guidelines stated in
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Appellant does not
persuasively address the Examiner's findings regarding the combination of
Wilkinson with Kim's single reader with adjacent antennas. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Wilkinson and Kim
teaches "a first antenna" and "a second antenna adjacent to the first
antennas," as required by claim 1.
For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. For the same reasons, we sustain
5
Appeal2018-006539
Application 14/064, 119
the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17, not
argued separately. See App. Br. 8.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-17 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6