Ex Parte Harding et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 6, 2019

14611320 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/611,320 02/02/2015 Andrew C. Harding
108134 7590 05/08/2019
HONEYWELL/ ADDITON
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
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.
H30142 1073
EXAMINER
STANFORD, CHRISTOPHERJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2887
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2019 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
docket@ahpapatent.com
SPSIP@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW C. HARDING, JEFFREY K. SUHR, and
NICHOLAS P. ALLEN
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-8 and 21-32. 2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant lists Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed November 28, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), 3.
2 Appeal Br. 9-14; Reply Brief filed April 17, 2017 ("Reply Br."), 4--8;
Final Office Action entered May 11, 2016 ("Final Act."), 2-15; Examiner's
Answer entered February 16, 2017 ("Ans."), 2-8.
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to automatic data collection
(ADC) devices, such as "readers capable of reading optical machine-
readable symbols ( e.g., barcode symbols, stacked code symbols, and/or
matrix or area code symbols), radio frequency identification (RFID) tags,
and/or magnetic stripes." Specification filed February 2, 2015 ("Spec.") ,r 2.
In particular, the claimed invention relates to methods and apparatus that
facilitate upgrading, validating, and testing ADC devices. Id.
Representative claims 1 and 24 are reproduced from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A method of testing automatic data collection devices, the
method comprising:
identifying directly with a testing computer an automatic
data collection device to be tested out of a plurality of automatic
data collection devices connected to the testing computer;
automatically determining a set of functionalities of the
automatic data collection device to be tested;
based on the determined set of functionalities of the
automatic data collection device to be tested, automatically
identifying a number of automatic data collection tests to be run
against the automatic data collection device to be tested;
determining whether any of the identified automatic data
collection tests are indicated as being disabled;
executing at least one of the identified automatic data
collection tests against the automatic data collection device to be
tested, but not executing against the automatic data collection
device to be tested any of the identified automatic data collection
tests that are indicated as being disabled; and
at least temporarily storing a set of results from the
execution of the identified automatic data collection tests against
the automatic data collection device to be tested.
2
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
24. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing
instructions that cause a testing computer to:
identify directly with the testing computer an automatic
data collection device to be tested out of a plurality of automatic
data collection devices connected to the testing computer;
automatically determine a set of functionalities of the
automatic data collection device to be tested;
based on the determined set of functionalities of the
automatic data collection device, automatically identify a
number of automatic data collection tests to be run against the
automatic data collection device;
determine whether any of the identified automatic data
collection tests are indicated as being disabled;
execute at least one of the identified automatic data
collection tests against the automatic data collection device, but
not execute against the automatic data collection device any of
the identified automatic data collection tests that are indicated as
being disabled; and
at least temporarily store a set of results from the execution
of the identified automatic data collection tests against the
automatic data collection device.
Appeal Br. 16, 19.
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections:
A. Claims 1-8 and 21-32 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement;
B. Claims 1, 4, 8, 22-24, 27, 31, and 32 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Silva; 3
3 US 6,360,268 Bl, issued Mar. 19, 2002.
3
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
C. Claims 1, 4, 8, 22-24, 27, 31, and 32 underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Silva in view of Statovici; 4
D. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 21, 25, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Silva in view of Statovici and
U meda; 5 and
E. Claims 7 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Silva in view of Statovici and McNeely. 6
Ans. 3-8; Final Act. 4--11.
III. DISCUSSION
Rejection A (Written Description). Independent claim 1 recites,
inter alia, "identifying directly with a testing computer an automatic data
collection device to be tested out of a plurality of automatic data collection
devices connected to the testing computer." Appeal Br. 16. Independent
claim 24 recites a nearly identical limitation. Id. at 19. The Examiner states
that the original specification does not support these limitations. Final Act.
3. The Examiner acknowledges that the Specification discloses "identifying
automatic data tests to be run against automatic data collection devices," but
takes the position that there is no evidence of "directly identifying an
automatic data collection device to be tested." Ans. 3. According to the
Examiner, "Applicant merely discloses that the testing computer invariably
identifies the ADC devices and that interpretation will guide a reasonably
broad interpretation of the pending claims." Final Act. 4.
4 US 6,167,545, issued Dec. 26, 2000.
5 US 2005/0154940 Al, published July 14, 2005.
6 US 2002/0162059 Al, published Oct. 31, 2002.
4
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
Appellant argues that this limitation in claim 1 "is simply describing a
testing computer identifying a particular automatic data collection (ADC)
device it wants to test, and that ADC device is one of a plurality of ADC
devices." Reply 5. According to Appellant, the Specification "provides
numerous examples of the testing computer directly identifying an ADC
device," and Appellant provides several citations to the Specification.
Appeal Br. 11-12. In particular, Appellant directs us to paragraphs 87, 88,
90, 99, and 101, and asserts that "the specification conveys with reasonable
clarity to those of ordinary skill in the art that the testing computer directly
identifies an automatic data collection device to be tested out of a plurality
of automatic data collection devices connected to the testing computer." Id.
at 12.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The paragraphs
Appellant cites in support of its arguments all describe various queries
carried out by the test computer. Paragraph 88 of the Specification describes
one such query as part of step 426 in Figure 5, which includes a test
computer remotely querying "a target ADC device." Spec. ,r 88. Although
we do not necessarily equate querying with identifying, it seems logical that
in order to query a "target ADC device," the test computer must first identify
that device as a "target ADC device." Thus, we agree with Appellant that
the Specification reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan the step of
identifying an automatic data collection device to be tested out of a plurality
of devices. Appeal Br. 12.
With regard to the Examiner's contention that Appellant "merely
discloses that the testing computer invariably identifies the ADC devices and
that interpretation will guide a reasonably broad interpretation of the
5
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
pending claims" (Final Act. 4), we note that the "the PTO applies to the
verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). The plain scope of the "identifying" step is consistent with the
disclosure in the Specification; therefore, we apply its broadest reasonable
interpretation.
We, therefore, reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and 21-
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 1 for lack of written description.
Rejection B (Anticipation). Appellant argues claims 1 and 24
together (Appeal Br. 12-13), and does not present any arguments for
dependent claims 4, 8, 22, 23, 27, 31, and 32. Therefore, we confine our
discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant to 3 7
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). By this rule, claims 4, 8, 22-24, 27, 31, and 32
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Silva teaches all limitations of claim 1,
including "identifying directly with a testing computer an automatic data
collection device to be tested out of a plurality of automatic data collection
devices connected to the testing computer." Final Act. 5 ( citing Silva,
11:23-58 for this limitation); Ans. 7 (citing Silva, cols. 2-3 and 7).
Appellant argues that Silva "teaches a method where the ACD device
directly identifies itself to the test computer, not the claim test computer
directly identifying an ADC device to be tested." Reply 6-7. Appellant
does not directly challenge the portion of Silva upon which the Examiner
relies, but instead directs us to column 7, lines 4 7--49 of Silva, which states
that "[i]t should be noted that the flow of control of the automated testing
6
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
system of the present invention is from the test machines 23 to the
dispatchers 17, and not vice versa." Id. at 7 (citing Silva, 7:47-49)
(emphasis added by Appellant). 7 In view of this, Appellant argues that Silva
does not anticipate claim 1 because it fails to disclose each and every
limitation as set forth in the claims.
The Appellant's arguments are ineffective to identify any reversible
error. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appellant's arguments are premised on the fact that Silva discloses
test machine 23 ( corresponding to the claimed ADC device) identifying
itself to dispatcher 17 (corresponding to the claimed test computer), not the
reverse ( a test computer directly identifying an ADC device) as claim 1
requires. We agree with Appellant that Silva discloses that, at one point in
time, test machines 23 initiate communication with dispatcher 1 7 to notify
dispatcher 17 that test machines 23 are available to execute a job. Appellant,
however, has apparently overlooked Silva's disclosure that prior to this step,
dispatcher 17 first determines if there are test machines 23 capable of
performing a job. Specifically, Silva states:
Generally, when a job is to be executed, i.e., when a software
package is to be tested, the requesters 13 send requests to the
dispatchers 1 7. . . . The dispatchers 1 7 then determine whether
there are test machines 23 capable of performing the job that are
not already executing other jobs and that are running the correct
operating system for performing the job. If there are, the
dispatcher 1 7 sends a message to the launchers 18 running on
those test machines 23 which tells those test machines 23 to wake
up and request work.
7 Appellant does not contest the Examiner's determination that the
dispatcher 17 in Silva corresponds to the "testing computer" in claim 1, and
the test machines 23 in Silva correspond to the ADC devices in claim 1.
7
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
Silva, 6: 19--30. Silva refers to this step in colmnn 7, at lines 16-17, which is
only a few lines above the portion of Silva upon which Appellant relies to
support its own argument. See App. Br. 12-13 (citing Silva, 7:47--49, 7:54--
57, 7:61-62); Reply 6-7 (citing Silva, 7:47--49); see also Final Act. 5 (citing
Silva, 6: 18-7 :9); Ans. 6 ( citing, inter alia, Silva, col. 7). In view of this, we
are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that Silva expressly teaches a
method where the dispatchers do not directly identify ADC devices to be
tested. To the contrary, the above-cited portion of Silva discloses
identifying certain ADC devices and sending those machines a message.
This is consistent with the Examiner's statement that the disclosed
communication between dispatchers 1 7 and test machines 23 is
bidirectional. Ans. 5 (referring to Figure 1 ).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
Rejections C, D, and E (Obviousness). Appellant again argues
claims 1 and 24 together, and does not present any separate arguments for
any of the dependent claims. With regard to claims 1 and 24, Appellant's
arguments opposing the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rely on
its assertion that Silva does not expressly disclose "identifying directly with
a testing computer an automatic data collection device to be tested out of a
plurality of automatic data collection devices connected to the testing
computer." In view of our determination above affirming the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Silva, we affirm Rejections C, D, and
E for the reasons discussed above, as well as those provided by the
Examiner in the Final Action and Answer.
8
Appeal2017-007501
Application 14/611,320
IV. SUMMARY
We reverse rejection A, but affirm rejections B through E. Therefore,
the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-8 and 21-32 is 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).
AFFIRMED
9