Ex Parte English et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 7, 201411364632 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation