Ex Parte Duron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

12549459 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/549,459 08/28/2009 Mark Duron
126568 7590 05/31/2016
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.
SBL08790 9038
EXAMINER
LAU, HO! CHING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK DURON, BENJAMIN BEKRITSKY,
DAVID GOREN, and MIKLOS STERN
Appeal2014-008853
Application 12/549,459
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008853
Application 12/549,459
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 6-9, 14--17, 19, and 20. Final Act. 1. Claims 2-5, 10-13, and 18
are objected to but deemed allowable. Final Act. 6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and
formatting added):
1. A method for determining a direction of motion of a Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID) tag when moving along a detection
path, the method comprising:
[(A)] receiving, at a single antenna of an RFID reader, which
antenna is tilted at a tilt angle with respect to the detection path,
response signals at different times from the RFID tag;
[(B)] measuring a plurality of RSSI samples of the response
signals received at the single antenna from the RFID tag;
[(C)] generating a plurality of RS SI/time data points for each of
the RSSI samples of the response signals received at the single
antenna, wherein each RS SI/time data point defines a measured RS SI
value for a particular RSSI sample versus a time that particular RSSI
sample was measured; and
[(D)] determining a lateral direction of motion of the RFID tag
relative to the RFID reader based on the plurality of RS SI/time data
points.
2
Appeal2014-008853
Application 12/549,459
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7-9, 15-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tuttle (US
2009/0091428 Al; Apr. 9, 2009) and Fishkin et al. (US 2006/0092040 Al;
May 4, 2006). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Tuttle, Fishkin, and Valenti et
al. (US 4,030,099; June 14, 1977).2
Appellants' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Fishkin merely teaches discloses an RFID reader capable of
determining whether an RFID tag is in motion, and at best may
be construed to teach an RFID reader determining whether an
RFID tag is moving toward or away from the RFID reader.
Nowhere does Fishkin teach an RFID reader that is configured
to determine a lateral direction of motion of the RFID tag
relative to the RFID reader.
App. Br. 9-10 (emphasis omitted).
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 7-9, 15-17, and 20. Except
for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 6, 14, and 19. Rather,
Appellants address these claims only by referencing the arguments for
claim 1. See App. Br. 12. Further, in the Answer, the Examiner modifies
the rejection of these claims with explicit addition of the Fishkin reference,
and Appellants do not dispute this new analysis. Thus, the rejection of these
claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision,
these claims are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2014-008853
Application 12/549,459
Appellant does not contend that Fishkin does not disclose
that an RFID tag may move laterally, or that a movement of the
RFID tag can be detected. Rather, Appellant contends that
regardless of the movement of the RFID tag, Fishkin merely
discloses, at best, a determination of whether the RFID tag is
moving towards or away from an RFID reader and does not
disclose a determination of a lateral direction of motion of the
RFID tag with respect to the RFID reader.
App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted).
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Fishkin makes no reference to a tilt angle of the antenna, which
tilt angle facilitates a determination of a lateral direction of
motion.
App. Br. 11.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants' conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own (1)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
additional points.
4
Appeal2014-008853
Application 12/549,459
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants'
argument for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 6-8. Additionally,
Appellants' Specification does not uses the term "lateral" to describe the
motion of the RFID tag. Rather, Appellants' Specification repeatedly states
that the motion is "towards the RFID reader" (i-fi-f 39, 52, 63, and 67) or
"away" therefrom (i-f 69). This is the same motion relationship Appellants
acknowledge (contention 1) is taught by Fishkin. To the extent that
Appellants intend the claim term "lateral" to be other than their disclosed
"towards" and "away" motions (one dimensional motion), the Fishkin
reference shows motion vectors in two dimensional space and also states that
this may easily be extended to three dimensional space. Fishkin i-f 18.
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we disagree with Appellants'
argument for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 8. Additionally,
contrary to Appellants' argument that "Fishkin makes no reference to a tilt
angle of the antenna" (App. Br. 11 ), Fishkin expressly references the
orientation of both the RFID tag and reader antennas, and the relationship of
orientation and strength of received signal. Fishkin i-f 17. Fishkin goes on to
discuss in more detail the relationship of the orientation and strength of the
signal as to the RFID tag antenna. Fishkin i-f 19. We conclude that based on
these teachings an artisan of ordinary skill would understand this detailed
relationship to be equally applicable to the orientation and strength of the
signal as to the RFID reader antenna.
5
Appeal2014-008853
Application 12/549,459
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 6-9, 14--17, 19,
and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 6-9, 14--17, 19, and 20 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 6-9, 14--17, 19, and 20 are
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