Ex Parte Dunsker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

11302715 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex Parte ERIC D. DUNSKER, and
MICHAEL A. SPAULDING

Appeal 2010-008316
Application 11/302,715
Technology Center 3600

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD and
REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges.

VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal No. 2010-008316
Application No. 11/302,715

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 17 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 17 and 21 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
17. A method of object location
management, comprising the steps of:
deploying a plurality of fixed
contactless identification devices in an area, each
of the fixed contactless identification devices
exhibiting a unique fixed device identifier that can
be read from a distance by a mobile locator;
placing movable contactless
identification devices on movable objects to be
stored in the area, each of the movable contactless
identification devices exhibiting a unique movable
device identifier that can be detected from a
distance by the mobile locator;
computing a current location of a
designated movable contactless identification
device based on fixed device identifiers and
movable device identifiers that are detected by the
mobile locator and received through a network by
a server;
determining that the designated
movable contactless identification device and
associated object has been placed in an improper
location by the server; and
sending directions to the mobile
locator to remove the object from the improper
location and to place the object in an assigned
location by the server.

Appeal No. 2010-008316
Application No. 11/302,715

3

21. A method of object location
management, comprising the steps of:
storing fixed device identifiers
associated with fixed contactless identification
devices in an area by a server;
storing locations of the fixed
contactless identification devices by the server;
storing path information identifying
fixed device identifiers detected by a mobile
locator as the mobile locator travels about the area
by the server;
receiving a moveable device identifier
from a moveable contactless identification device
on a moveable object in the area from a mobile
locator through a network communication
interface by the server;
computing a location of the moveable
contactless identification device and the object
based on fixed device identifiers and any other
moveable device identifiers received by the mobile
locator by the server; and
sending directions to the mobile
locator to remove the object from an improper
location and to place the object in an assigned
location.

REJECTIONS
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Francis (U.S. Pat. 6,600,418 B2; Iss. July 29, 2003).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
It is well settled that “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a
single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appeal No. 2010-008316
Application No. 11/302,715

4

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claim 17.
The Examiner contends that Francis discloses a method of object
location management, comprising the steps of:
 Deploying a plurality of fixed contactless identification devices
in an area (140, 150), each of the fixed contactless identification
devices exhibiting a unique fixed identifier that can be read
from a distance by a mobile locator (120) –(See col. 7, lines 6-
28).
 Placing moveable contactless identification devices on movable
objects to be stored in the area (130), each of the moveable
contactless identification devices exhibiting a unique movable
device identifier that can be detected from a distance by a
mobile located (120) – (See col. 7, lines 6-28).
 Computing a current location of a designated movable
contactless identification device based on fixed device
identifiers and movable device identifiers that are detected by
the mobile locator and received through a network by a server
(120) – (See col. 7, lines 41-52).
 Determining that the designated movable contactless
identification device and associated object has been placed in
an improper location by the server (See col. 8, lines 46-65).
 Sending directions to the mobile locator to remove the object
from the improper location and to place the object in an
assigned location by the server (See col. 8, lines 46-65).
Appeal No. 2010-008316
Application No. 11/302,715

5

 Wherein the step of deploying the fixed contactless
identification devices is followed by a step of mapping
combinations of fixed device identifiers to locations in the area
by a mobile locator (See col. 7, lines 41-52).
 Wherein the step of mapping combinations of fixed device
identifiers to locations in the area include storing combinations
of fixed device identifiers received at various locations while
moving about the area (See col. 7, lines 54-65.
 Wherein the step of computing a location of a designated
moveable contactless identification device includes noting a
combination of fixed device identifiers received simultaneously
with a movable device identifier, together with a historical
record of fixed device identifiers received before the movable is
received (See col. 7, lines 54-65).
Ans. 3-4.
Appellants contend that with respect to claim 17 Francis fails to
disclose:
computing a current location of a designated
movable contactless identification device based on
fixed device identifiers and movable device
identifiers that are detected by the mobile locator
and received through a network by a server;
determining that the designated movable
contactless identification device and associated
object has been placed in an improper location by
the server; and
Appeal No. 2010-008316
Application No. 11/302,715

6

sending directions to the mobile locator to
remove the object from the improper location and
to place the object in an assigned location by the
server.App.Br. 6
The Examiner has cited col.8, lines 46-65 as disclosing the
determining step. Ans.4. The Appellant points out that the cited passage
discloses how vehicle 110 travels to a pallet 132 and to loading dock 152.
According to the Appellant, there is no suggestion that the pallet 132 is
improperly located. App.Br.8 We read this provision as disclosing a
method that can identify when a driver is at the wrong location, or when the
driver is picking up the wrong object, but not necessarily a method that
determines when the object is at the wrong location. We find that there is no
disclosure regarding a step of determining that the designated movable
contactless identification device and associated object has been places in an
improper location by the server as required according to claim 17.
Therefore, Francis fails to disclose each and every element of claim 17 and
we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Rejection of claim 21.
The Examiner has cited col.8, lines 46-65 as disclosing the step of
“Sending directors [sic] to the mobile locator to remove the object from the
improper location and to place the object in an assigned location by the
server” Ans.4. The Appellant points out that the cited passage discloses how
vehicle 110 travels to a pallet 132 and to loading dock 152. The Appellant
further states that there is no disclosure that pallet 132 is improperly
located.App.Br. 8 We find that there is no disclosure in Francis regarding
Appeal No. 2010-008316
Application No. 11/302,715

7

sending directions to the mobile locator to remove the object from an
improper location and to place the object in an assigned location as required
according to claim 21. Therefore, Francis fails to disclose each and every
element of claim 21 and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claim 21 also requires determining when an object has been placed in
an improper location. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.

CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Francis is reversed.

DECISION

REVERSED

Klh