Ex Parte English et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2014

11364632 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KENT L. ENGLISH and CHRISTOPHER K. ZUVER
____________

Appeal 2012-000799
Application 11/364,632
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-000799
Application 11/364,632

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of monitoring an entrance to
a cargo container. See Abstract.
Representative Claim on Appeal
Claim 1 is exemplary with key disputed language highlighted:

Claim 1: A method of monitoring an entrance to a cargo container,
comprising the following steps:

(a) acquiring video data using a video camera having a
field of view directed at an entrance of a cargo container;

(b) analyzing the acquired video data to detect whether or
not any object or any person has entered a space at said entrance of
said cargo container;

(c) after step (b) has been performed, generating entry
data indicating that an object or person or both have entered said
space at said entrance of said cargo container;

(d) time stamping said entry data with the time when said
entry data was generated;

(e) transmitting said time-stamped entry data to a data
processor;

(f) while step (a) is being performed, monitoring said
space using RFID technology to detect whether or not any RFID
authorization device has entered said space;
Appeal 2012-000799
Application 11/364,632

3
(g) while step (a) is being performed, creating a
respective record for each RFID authorization device that has
entered said space at said entrance of said cargo container;

(h) time stamping each of said ID records with the
respective time when said respective ID record was created;

(i) transmitting said time-stamped ID records to said data
processor;

(j) receiving said transmitted time-stamped entry data and
ID records at said data processor;

(k) correlating in time said time-stamped entry data and
said time-stamped ID records; and

(l) processing said correlated time-stamped entry data
and time-stamped object or person ID records to has entered
identify any event wherein an said space without any RFID
authorization device entering said space.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Winand (US 2007/0273514 A1, Nov. 29, 2007), in view
of Blake (US 2006/0001537, Jan. 5, 2006), and further in view of Easley
(US 2005/0073406 A1, Apr. 7, 2005). (Ans. 5).

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9–18;
Reply Br. 1–8), the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1–20 turns on whether the combination of Winand,
Blake, and Easley teaches or suggests the following limitations recited in
Appeal 2012-000799
Application 11/364,632

4
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8, 12, and
17:1
(d) time stamping said entry data with the time when said
entry data was generated; …
(k) correlating in time said time-stamped entry data and said
time-stamped ID records.

Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited
in independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 17. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellants on
pages 5 through 28 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and
concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
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 have considered Appellants’ Reply Brief but find it
unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner’s responses.
The Examiner relied upon the Blake reference for elements (d) and (k)
of claim 1. Ans. 7–8. The Examiner finds, and we agree:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
implement a correlation between the time information of the
RFID and the time information of the secondary detection means
in order to ensure the accuracy of the time correspondence
detection determination of the intended/detected entity if
detecting without a corresponding identifier at a time through a

1 Elements (b) and (k) of claim 8, element (f) of claim 12, and claim 17
recite similar subject matter.

Appeal 2012-000799
Application 11/364,632

5
defined area (the secondary detection means could be operated a
motion sensing to enhance secondary sensing to confirm the
entity is detected in the defined area).

Ans. 22–23. In particular, the Examiner finds Blake teaches “a system
capability of correlating a RFID event data with time stamping information
to a video event data with time stamping information for user event
notification.” Ans. 23. The Examiner finds that the combination of Winand
and Blake would ensure accuracy in the time correspondence determination
of the intended/detected entity if detecting without a corresponding identifier
(RFID) at a time through a defined area, particularly among other entities in
the same defined area at the same time. Ans. 24.
Thus, the Examiner properly identifies the relevant teachings in
Winand, Blake, and Easley and explains how each claimed element is met
by those teachings (see Ans. 5–28).
As to Appellants’ contention “it would not have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate time-stamping and
correlation as taught by Blake into the system of Winand” (App. Br. 14;
see also Reply. Br. 7), we first note Appellants’ challenge to the combined
references is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness because all of the features of the secondary reference need not
be bodily incorporated into the primary reference. Consideration should be
given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). In that regard, the Supreme Court has indicated:
[It is error to] assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill
attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of
Appeal 2012-000799
Application 11/364,632

6
prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . Common sense
teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle.

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (citation omitted).

Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d
881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As such, Winand would be adjusted to accommodate teachings from
Blake by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, the combination as a
whole would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art to time stamp the
entry data with the time when the entry data was generated and correlate in
time the time-stamped entry data and the time-stamped ID records.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 17 and claims 2–7, 9–11, 13–16, and 18–
20, not separately argued with particularity by Appellants, are sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winand, Blake, and Easley.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2012-000799
Application 11/364,632

7

AFFIRMED

tj