Ex Parte Gualdi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 5, 2012

11048291 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GIOVANNI GUALDI, CYRIL BRIGNONE, and
SALIL PRADHAN
____________________

Appeal 2009-014136
Application 11/048,291
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R MacDONALD, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and KALYAN
K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014136
Application 11/048,291

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-36, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented a multi-sensor system for identification and
data collection. Specification 3:2-3. An understanding of the invention can
be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below
[bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]:
1. A multi-sensor system for identification and data collection,
said system comprising:
[1] an identification system for determining the identity of a
target object;
[2] a physical sensing system for determining at least one
sensible characteristic of said target object; and
[3] a monitoring system coupled with said identification
system and with said physical sensing system, said monitoring
system for comparing a virtually described characteristic which
is associated with said identity of said target object with said at
least one sensible characteristic of said target object.

REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Adler US 6,738,631 B1 May 18, 2004

1
Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 12, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 22,
2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 25, 2008), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Jan. 11, 2008).
Appeal 2009-014136
Application 11/048,291

3

REJECTIONS
2

Claims 1-4, 8, 10-17, 19-22, 26, 28-31, and 34-35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Adler.
Claims 5-7, 23-25, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Adler.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred turns on whether Adler
describes “comparing a virtually described characteristic which is associated
with said identity of said target object with said at least one sensible
characteristic of said target object . . . ,” as required by claim 1 and as recited
by the other independent claims.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-17, 19-22, 26, 28-31, and 34-35 rejected under 35
U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Adler
The Appellants contend that Adler fails to describe “comparing a
virtually described characteristic which is associated with said identity of
said target object with said at least one sensible characteristic of said target

2
In the Answer, claims 8, 19, 27, and 36 are objected to as being dependent
upon a rejected independent claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. Ans. 8. However, claims 8 and 19 are rejected elsewhere
in the Answer (Ans. 4 and 6,) and claims 9 and 18 are not rejected in the
Answer. Also, claims 27 and 36 recite “routing said target object in
response to said comparing,” while depending on claims 19 and 28; and
claims 9 and 18 recite this same limitation, while depending on claims 1 and
10 respectively. Therefore, we decide this appeal on the basis of the
rejections articulated in the Answer and the presumption that the Examiner
objected to claims 9, 18, 27, and 36.
Appeal 2009-014136
Application 11/048,291

4
object . . . ,” as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 9-13. The Appellants further
argue that the Adler’s description of “discovery” is not the same as the
recited “identification” step because Adler describes that the discovery step
merely discovers physical appearance characteristics of objects and does not
describe that the object is identified. Reply Br. 1-5.
We disagree with the Appellants. Limitation [1] of claim 1 requires
an identification system for determining the identity of a target object.
Limitation [3] further requires a monitoring system that compares a virtually
described characteristic associated with the identity of the object with a
sensible characteristic of the object. While the Specification fails to provide
a specific definition for “virtually described characteristics . . . ,” the
Specification does provide the context for a virtually described characteristic
to encompass a description of an anticipated characteristic of a target object
which may or may not necessarily be an accurate description of the target
object. Specification 10:22-11:1. The Specification does define a “sensible
characteristic” to mean a measurable parameter of an object. Specification
10:5-10. The Specification further provides examples of both a virtually
described characteristic and a sensible characteristic to include the size,
shape, weight, volume, temperature, color, odor, and electro-magnetic
emissions of the target object. Specification 10:5-10 and 10:19-22.
Applying these meanings to the claims, claim 1 essentially requires a system
for determining the identify of a target object, a system for determining or
measuring a parameter of the object, and a system for comparing a
parameter associated with the identity of the object with the measured
parameter.
Appeal 2009-014136
Application 11/048,291

5
As found by the Examiner, Adler describes a method for identifying
an object and discovering information about the object. Adler 1:7-9 and
Ans. 3-4 and 10-11. Adler specifically describes discovering information
describing the physical appearance of objects in the environment. Adler
2:58-60. Information pertaining to objects proximate the user is stored in a
repository. Adler 3:4-7. Adler further describes that the identity of the
objects may include items such as testing equipment, computers, and
printers and the discovery step further collects physical information
associated with these objects. Adler 3:29-37. That is, the identity of the
objects is included in the information discovered and stored in a repository.
As such, Adler describes limitation [1] of claim 1.
Adler further describes that the portable device may include a sensor
for acquiring information concerning the appearance of an object of interest.
Adler 3:50-54. That is, Adler’s portable device is measuring a physical
characteristic or parameter of a target object and therefore Adler describes
limitation [2] of claim 1. Adler also describes an object recognition
algorithm that compares this measured parameter with discovery data
describing objects and identifies the object. Adler 4:3-7. As such, Adler
describes limitation [3] of claim 1.
The Appellants specifically argue that Adler compares objects in
order to identify an object, whereas independent claims 1, 19, and 29 recite
identifying objects and then comparing them. App. Br. 11-12. However, as
discussed supra, Adler describes that the identity of the objects is
determined in the discovery step. In other words, the names and parameters
of objects are stored in a repository and this information is used to identify
target objects using physical appearance information. As also discussed
Appeal 2009-014136
Application 11/048,291

6
supra, the claims only require that the identity of a target object is
determined and does not limit this determining step to occur at a specific
time with respect to the other steps. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 10-17, 19-
22, 26, 28-31, and 34-35.

Claims 5-7, 23-25, 32, and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Adler
The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice
fails to remedy the deficiencies alleged with respect to independent claims 1,
19, and 29 discussed supra and therefore claims 5-7, 23-25, 32, and 33 are
allowable for the same reasons. App. Br. 14-15. We disagree with the
Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments were not found to be persuasive
supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 8, 10-17, 19-22, 26,
28-31, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C §102(e) as being anticipated by Adler.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5-7, 23-25, 32, and 33
under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Adler.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 10-17, 19-22, 26, 28-31, and 34-35
under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Adler is sustained.
Appeal 2009-014136
Application 11/048,291

7
 The rejection of claims 5-7, 23-25, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Adler is sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ke