Ex Parte Cristache

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

13921933 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/921,933 06/19/2013 Lucian Cristache
25315 7590 09/19/2018
LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC
701 FIFTH A VENUE
SUITE4800
SEATTLE, WA 98104
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.
LUCM-1-1004 3943
EXAMINER
KHAN,OMERS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUCIAN CRIST ACHE
Appeal 2018-003362
Application 13/921,933 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appellant's invention is a system and method for object localization
and path identification based on RFID sensing. The invention includes a
software module that localizes RFID tags based on information received
from RFID tag readers using a network model having endpoints and oriented
links. Abstract. The software module further associates semantic attributes,
1 The real party in interest is Lucomm Technologies, Inc.
Appeal2018-003362
Application 13/921,933
which can represent movement, location conditions, sensor outputs, etc.,
with the oriented links between endpoints. See Spec. ,r,r 36, 94.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A radio frequency identification (RFID) system for
localizing an RFID tag, the system comprising:
a plurality of radio frequency identification (RFID) tag
readers;
a computer system communicatively coupled with the
plurality of RFID tag readers over a network;
a memory associated with the computer system, the
memory storing a network semantic model having a plurality of
endpoints and oriented links between the endpoints, wherein the
endpoints are associated with physical locations in space,
each of the endpoints having associated with it one or more radio
frequency identification (RFID) tag readers, and a plurality of
semantic attributes associated with the oriented links, the
memory further storing a template of at least one composite
semantic attribute indicating that the at least one composite
semantic attribute is a combination of a first and a second
semantic attribute from among the plurality of semantic
attributes;
the computer system being configured to localize the
RFID tag based on data received from the RFID tag readers;
and to infer and associate a composite semantic attribute
to the RFID tag by:
assigning a first semantic attribute to a first
oriented link;
assigning a second semantic attribute to a second
oriented link;
determining that the RFID tag passed the first
oriented link at a first time value and assigning the first
semantic attribute to the RFID tag;
determining that the RFID tag passed a second
oriented link at a second time value and assigning the
second semantic attribute to the RFID tag;
inferring the composite semantic attribute based on
a combination of the first semantic attribute and the
2
Appeal2018-003362
Application 13/921,933
second semantic attribute and the stored template of the
at least one composite semantic attribute; and
associating the at least one composite semantic
attribute to the RFID tag.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Hines
Kanevsky
Krishna
US 2001/0040512 Al
US 6,988,279 B 1
US 2006/0022800 Al
Nov. 15, 2001
Jan. 17,2006
Feb.2,2006
Claims 1, 2, and 5-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Krishna and Hines.
Claim 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Krishna, Hines, and Kanevsky.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Apr. 13, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 9,
2017), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 13, 2017), and the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Sept. 23, 2016) for their respective
details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Krishna and Hines disclose or suggest a
memory storing a semantic model having a plurality of endpoints and
oriented links between the endpoints?
2. Does the combination of Krishna and Hines disclose or suggest a
memory storing a semantic model having a plurality of semantic attributes
associated with the oriented links?
3
Appeal2018-003362
Application 13/921,933
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, AND 16
Independent claim 1 recites a system for localizing an RFID tag,
including, inter alia, a computer system having a memory, the memory
storing a network semantic model having a plurality of endpoints and
oriented links between the endpoints, and a plurality of semantic attributes
associated with the oriented links. Independent claim 16 recites an
analogous method having analogous limitations regarding oriented links and
associated semantic attributes.
ORIENTED LINKS
The Examiner finds that Krishna discloses the claimed oriented links.
According to the Examiner, Krishna teaches a configuration database
included in the reader configuration component, to "map reader locations
and tag data to the physical RFID environment." Final Act. 2; Krishna ,r 116.
The Examiner further finds that Krishna teaches employing deductive logic
on tag responses received to determine the direction of movement of tagged
items or individuals, and that this information can be used to anticipate when
the tags will move through the successive interrogation zones. Krishna ,r
416.
While the Examiner correctly states the content of Krishna, we find
that the Examiner erred in equating those disclosures with the claimed
memory storing a network semantic model having a plurality of endpoints
and oriented links between the endpoints. Krishna's disclosure of a
configuration database does not include any disclosure of storage, in a
memory, of oriented links between endpoints (i.e., locations). Krishna
provides a listing of the data stored in the database; we find that none of that
4
Appeal2018-003362
Application 13/921,933
data corresponds to the "oriented links" claimed. Krishna ,r,r 117-26.
Krishna teaches determining the direction of movement of tagged items, and
may use this information to anticipate when tags will move through
interrogation zones, but the Examiner has pointed to no disclosure in
Krishna that this determined direction, or anticipation of movement, is in
any way stored in a memory associated with the computer system, or that
such a memory stores a network semantic model.
SEMANTIC ATTRIBUTES
The Examiner finds that Appellant gives a few examples of the
meaning of "semantic attributes," but ultimately finds that Appellant "has
not defined the phrase," and so accords the phrase a plain meaning
consistent with the Specification. Ans. 4. Citing to dictionaries, the
Examiner construes "semantic attributes" as "related characteristics." The
Examiner finds that Krishna discloses "' ... location definitions, the
physical configuration of the readers, reader configuration and
parameterization capabilities, and/or projected traversal rates of tags ...
through the defined locations,"' equating these concepts to "semantic
attributes." Ans. 6 ( citing Krishna ,r 115). The Examiner further finds that
employing "deductive logic on tag responses received by the readers 10.1-
1 O.q, which are coordinated at the transaction level to determine the
direction of movement of tagged items" to constitute "related
characteristics[, i.e., semantic attributes,] associated [(sic)] the oriented
links or direction of travelling." Ans. 6; Krishna ,r 416.
In light of Appellant's various disclosed examples of the meaning of
"semantic attributes," we do not agree with the Examiner's construction of
the term as "related characteristics."
5
Appeal2018-003362
Application 13/921,933
Appellant describes that "oriented links preferably have semantic
attributes assigned to them; the semantic attributes can be defined or inferred
as dependent on a sensing entity measurement or status." Spec. ,r 94. A
semantic attribute can, for example, indicate the state of concentration of a
disinfectant, reliant on a sensor reading. "The system might assign to all the
tags present in the disinfection area a hazardous related type semantic." Id.
"In one version a semantic attribute is a function of an oriented link and at
least one additional parameter unrelated to the geographic relationship
between the links." Id.
The Specification provides further examples of semantic attributes.
An ordered link indicating travel from outside a building to the inside
through a particular door can be associated with an attribute such as "IN
DOOR 92" or "IN DOOR 93." Spec. ,I 36; Fig. 5. An ordered link from
outside a room to inside a room can be associated with semantic attribute
"ENTER ROOM 80." Spec. ,r 36; Fig. 6. Other semantic attributes can
include "PACKAGED" (inferred based on a packaging area link),
"STORED" (inferred from a warehouse link), "UNLOAD" (based on
unloading from a truck). Spec. ,r 83.
We conclude, from the numerous examples of semantic attributes
given in the Specification, that a "semantic attribute" constitutes text
information descriptive of the circumstances ( e.g., movement, condition) of
an oriented link. We further find that the Examiner erred in finding that
Krishna teaches a memory storing a plurality of semantic attributes
associated with oriented links. First, the deduced direction of movement
cited by the Examiner (Ans. 6; Krishna ,r 416) arises from the same section
of Krishna relied upon by the Examiner as a teaching of oriented links per
6
Appeal2018-003362
Application 13/921,933
se, rather than semantic attributes associated with the oriented links.
Second, the Examiner's cited evidence does not support a finding that
Krishna teaches that the alleged semantic attributes in Krishna are stored, or
stored in a memory associated with the computer system, or associated with
oriented links, as claim 1 requires.
We find that the Examiner erred in finding that Krishna and Hines
disclose all the limitations of claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner's §
103(a) rejection of claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, and 16.
CLAIMS 2, 6-9, AND 12-14
Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1. Because we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as explained supra, we
need not reach the separate arguments for the patentability of these
dependent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection of claims 2, 6-9, and 12-14, for the reasons expressed supra with
respect to the rejection of claim 1.
CLAIMS 3 AND 4
Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1, whose
rejection we do not sustain, supra. We have reviewed Kanevsky, and we
find that Kanevsky does not remedy the identified deficiencies of Krishna
and Hines. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection of claims 3 and 4, for the reasons expressed supra with respect to
the rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Krishna and Hines does not disclose or suggest
a memory storing a semantic model having a plurality of endpoints and
oriented links between the endpoints.
7
Appeal2018-003362
Application 13/921,933
2. The combination of Krishna and Hines does not disclose or suggest
a memory storing a semantic model having a plurality of semantic attributes
associated with the oriented links.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
8