Ex Parte Hannah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2013

12200804 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte STEPHEN E. HANNAH, SCOTT J. CARTER and
JESSE M. JAMES
________________

Appeal 2011-008385
Application 12/200,804
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM V. SAINDON and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-008385
Application 12/200,804

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-19. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter pertains to a method, system and
apparatus “for tracking the locations and statuses of vehicles, such as
shopping carts.” Spec., para. [0006]. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of
the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method of estimating a number of carts clustered
together in an area that comprises a plurality of carts, the
method comprising:
causing each of the plurality of carts to generate a radio
frequency (RF) transmission;
at each respective cart, generating Received Signal
Strength Indication (RSSI) values for the transmissions
received from the other carts; and
collectively analyzing the RSSI values generated at the
carts to estimate how many of the carts are clustered together.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Ekchian US 4,862,160 Aug. 29, 1989
Moreno US 5,315,290 May 24, 1994
Wieth US 7,218,225 B2 May 15, 2007

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL1
1. Claims 1, 2, 11-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moreno and Ekchian. Ans. 3.

1 The specific claims subject to each rejection was clarified by the Examiner
in a Miscellaneous Communication mailed Aug. 20, 2010. Appellants
responded accordingly in their briefs.
Appeal 2011-008385
Application 12/200,804

3
2. Claims 3-10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moreno, Ekchian and Wieth. Ans. 5.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue each independent claim (i.e. claims 1, 11, 12 and 14)
separately. App. Br. 6-12. Claim 1 is a method claim, claims 11 and 12 are
system claims while claim 14 is an apparatus claim. We likewise address
each claim separately.
The rejection of independent method claim 1
as being unpatentable over Moreno and Ekchian
Claim 1 includes the step of generating, “at each respective cart,”
received signal strength indication (RSSI) values “for the transmissions
received from the other carts.” Claim 1 also includes the step of collectively
analyzing these RSSI values “generated by the carts” in order “to estimate
how many of the carts are clustered together.”
The Examiner relies on Moreno for teaching other claim limitations
and relies on Ekchian for teaching the above limitations. Ans. 4. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Ekchian “teaches a method of
estimating a number of items clustered together in an area that comprises a
plurality of carts” and also the generation of RSSI values and the analyzing
of these values “to estimate how many of the items are clustered together.”
Ans. 4.
Appellants disagree and contend that Ekchian “merely identifies the
products in the vicinity of the wheeled cart as being within one or more
SKU’s, without attempting to estimate how many of the products are
clustered together.” Ans. 7, see also Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2011-008385
Application 12/200,804

4
Ekchian discloses a wheeled cart that repeatedly sweeps through a set
of frequencies to interrogate a plurality of groups of items within the cart’s
range. Ekchian Abstract. Items in each group are tagged with a responder
having a unique identifier (e.g., a stock keeping unit SKU) associated with
that group. Ekchian Fig. 1, Abstract, 2:2-6. Ekchian also discloses that the
strength of the signal returned to the cart from the tagged item is measured
and stored and also that the on-board computer displays the “total number of
units in the given SKU.” Ekchian 3:15-25. While Ekchian is silent
regarding any clustering of common SKU items, the Examiner finds that
Fig. 1 “shows items on the shelf clustered together” and provides a
definition of “clustered.” Ans. 10-11. We agree that Ekchian’s Fig. 1
discloses products in clusters, and that Ekchian discloses counting the items
having the same SKU however, the Examiner does not indicate where
Ekchian discloses any calculations or estimations to indicate whether like
products are clustered together on the peg rack or whether they are spaced
apart from each other and/or intermixed with products of other groups when
the sweep is made. In other words, while Ekchian determines the number of
like items, the Examiner does not indicate where Ekchian teaches the
determination of whether the items counted are clustered together or not.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that “Ekchian’s system merely
determines the number of items within a particular group (as determined by
tags having a particular SKU frequency set)” and does not disclose the step
of collectively analyzing received values to estimate clustering, as claimed.
Reply Br. 3.
Appellants acknowledge that “the Examiner is equating Ekchian’s
shelved items with carts” and even assuming this to be proper, Appellants
Appeal 2011-008385
Application 12/200,804

5
contend that “Ekchian fails to teach or suggest that each of the shelved items
receives transmissions from the other shelved items and generates RSSI
values in response to the received transmissions.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants
contend that this is “because the tags 22 of Ekchian do not generate RSSI
values for received transmissions, much less for transmissions received from
a plurality of carts.” App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 2. We agree that Ekchian
ascertains the computed number of items based on signals received from
each tagged item, but we are not informed where Ekchian’s tags themselves
generate RSSI values for transmissions received from other like items.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2-10 and 18.

The rejection of independent system claim 11
as being unpatentable over Moreno and Ekchian
Claim 11 includes limitations similar to those discussed above with
respect to claim 1 and particularly the limitations of “at each respective cart,
generating RSSI values for the transmissions received from the other carts”
and “collectively analyzing the RSSI values generated at the carts to
estimate how many of the carts are clustered together.” The Examiner does
not provide a separate rationale for the rejection of claim 11 but instead
relies on “the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.” Ans. 7, see also
13. As we find deficiencies in the rationale applied to claim 1, we likewise
reverse the rejection of independent claim 11.

The rejection of independent system claim 12
as being unpatentable over Moreno and Ekchian
Appeal 2011-008385
Application 12/200,804

6
Claim 12 includes the limitation of “wherein the wheels are
configured to measure signal strengths of transmissions from other wheels”
and further that these signals are analyzed “to identify carts that are clustered
together.” The Examiner specifically relies on “the same art and rationale
used to reject claim 1” (Ans. 7) and further contends that “one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually” (Ans. 14). The
Examiner does not indicate where Appellants argue Moreno and Ekchian
“individually.” To the contrary, Appellants contend that “Moreno and
Ekchian do not collectively teach or suggest” certain limitations (italics
added). App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 5. The Examiner reiterates that “Ekchian
teaches items clustered together” and as indicated previously, it is not
disputed that Ekchian discloses items clustered together. See e.g., Fig. 1.
However, the Examiner does not indicate where Ekchian discloses wheels
“configured to measure signal strength of transmissions from other wheels”
or where such signals are analyzed “to identify carts that are clustered
together.” Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 12
and dependent claims 13 and 19.

The rejection of independent apparatus claim 14
as being unpatentable over Moreno and Ekchian
Claim 14 includes the limitation of communication circuitry
“configured to receive radio frequency transmissions from other shopping
cart wheel assemblies of other shopping carts” and further that the
“transmissions received from the other shopping cart wheel assemblies”
include signal strength data to enable the detection of “clusters of shopping
carts.” The Examiner finds that “claim 14 is rejected using the same art and
rationale used to reject claim 1” (Ans. 7). Appellants contend that Moreno
Appeal 2011-008385
Application 12/200,804

7
and Ekchian do not teach of suggest communication circuitry that receives
transmissions from other wheel assemblies as claimed. App. Br. 11, see also
Reply Br. 8. The Examiner does not identify where Ekchian discloses
communication circuitry that receives “transmissions from other shopping
cart wheel assemblies of other shopping carts” or where Ekchian discloses
that such transmissions include signal strength data used to “detect clusters
of shopping carts” as claimed. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15-17.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-19 are reversed.

REVERSED

JRG