Ex Parte JAFFRI et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 9, 201915150550 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 15/150,550 05/10/2016 RERAN K. JAFFRI 126568 7590 05/13/2019 Zebra Technologies Corporation 3 Overlook Point Lincolnshire, IL 60069 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. 151571US01 6762 EXAMINER LE, THIEN MINH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2887 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2019 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): docketing@zebra.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REHAN K. JAFFRI, MARKE. DRZYMALA, and EDWARDD.BARKAN Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Claessen, 2 and claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Claessen in view ofMieslinger. 3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). WeAFFIRM. 4 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Symbol Technologies, LLC, a wholly indirectly owned company of Zebra Technologies Corporation, which is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). 2 Claessen, US 2009/0101717 Al, published Apr. 23, 2009. 3 Mieslinger, US 2012/0055998 Al, published Mar. 8, 2012. 4 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed May 10, 2016, Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Oct. 10, 2017, the Examiner's Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to an arrangement and a method for processing products associated with bar code symbols and/or radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. Spec. ,r 1. In particular, the arrangement and method are directed to a point-of-sale transaction/checkout workstation through which products whose bar code symbols and/or RFID tags are passed and read. Id. Appellant discloses that workstations having scanners for reading one- and two-dimensional bar code scanners are known. Id. ,r 2. Appellant also discloses that workstations having RFID systems for reading RFID tags on products are also known. Id. ,r 3. However, although these two types of systems are known, according to Appellant, the operator needs to operate two different readers at two different times. Id. ,r 5. In addition, Appellant discloses that the RFID reader, and particularly its RF antenna, was not integrated with the symbol reader in the same workstation because the metal housing walls of the workstation would attenuate, and sometimes even block, the RF interrogating and return waves. Id. Therefore, Appellant teaches a workstation having both a symbol reader and an RFID reader wherein the housing is made of a material, such as metal, that reflects RF energy with a window that is transmissive to both light and RF electromagnetic energy. Id. ,r 15. Independent claims 1 and 11, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitations at issue are italicized. 1. An arrangement for processing products associated with targets Answer ("Ans.") dated Dec. 12, 2017, and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Feb. 12, 2018. 2 Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 to be read, the arrangement comprising: a window constituted of a material transmissive to light and to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy; a housing for supporting the window and having housing walls constituted of a material that reflects the RF energy; an electro-optical reader supported by the housing and operative for reading the targets configured as bar code symbols by detecting return light returning from the symbols and passing through the window; and an RF identification (RFID) reader including an RF antenna supported by the housing and operative for radiating the RF energy at a frequency greater than 900 MHz, the RFID reader being operative for reading the targets configured as RFID tags by directing the radiated RF energy reflected by the housing walls through the window away from the housing, and by detecting return RF energy returning from the tags toward the housing through the window. 11. A method of processing products associated with targets to be read, the method comprising: constituting a window of a material transmissive to light and to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy; supporting the window on a housing having housing walls; constituting the housing walls of a material that reflects the RF energy; reading the targets configured as bar code symbols with an electro-optical reader supported on the housing by detecting return light returning from the symbols and passing through the window; and reading the targets configured as RFID tags with an RF identification (RFID) reader having an RF antenna supported on the housing by directing the RF energy radiated by the RF antenna at a frequency greater than 900 MHz and reflected by the housing walls through the window away from the housing, and by detecting return RF energy returning from the tags toward the housing through the window. 3 Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections.")). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant's arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues the claims rejected as anticipated by Claessen as a first group, and then separately argues claims 5 and 15 as a separate, second group. Appeal Br. 7-11. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of the first group, and claim 5 as representative of the second group. Also, because Appellant argues claims 4 and 14 together with regard to the obviousness rejection, we select claim 4 as representative of this group. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). Anticipation Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Claessen. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner found that Claessen discloses an arrangement for processing products associated with targets to be read as claimed. Id. Claim 1 Appellant argues that Claessen does not anticipate claim 1 because Claessen fails to teach or suggest that the metal housing components are RF 4 Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 reflective. Appeal Br. 8. To the contrary, Appellant contends that Claessen's housing is not RF reflective because Claessen teaches that the antenna pattern is influenced by the metallic parts of the scanner and the metal in the vicinity of the mirror limits the RFID tag reading zone. Id. Further, Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to provide any evidentiary support for the finding that, in the RFID field, metallic material was known to reflect RF energy. Id. Appellant counters that it was known that metal may either reflect or absorb electromagnetic waves. Id. at 9, citing Ahson. 5 In essence, Appellant's position is that Claes sen' s metal housing is not inherently RF reflective because Ahson teaches that metal can be either RF reflective or absorptive. Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation of claim 1. A claim is anticipated only where "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'!. Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 5 81 ( CCP A 19 81). Here, the Examiner found that Claes sen' s housing is inherently RF reflective because, like Appellant's housing, Claessen's is constituted of metal. Ans. 5-7. Indeed, Appellant merely discloses that the "housing walls are constituted of a material, such as metal, that reflects the RF energy." Spec. ,r 15. Also, Appellant fails to direct our attention to any 5 Syed A. Ahson, et al., RFID HANDBOOK: APPLICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, SECURITY, AND PRIVACY,§ 4.3.4, CRC Press (2008). We note that Appellant's citation and reliance on Ahson fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(2). Thus, we may properly disregard Ahson in our consideration of Appellant's arguments. 5 Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 evidence that common metal housing materials wouldn't reflect RF energy. To the contrary, Appellant discloses a variety of such metal materials, including aluminum and steel, as suitable for reflecting RF energy. Spec. ,r 25. In addition, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant mischaracterizes the nature of Ahson's teaching. As the Examiner finds (Ans. 10), though Ahson teaches that metal may be either reflective or absorptive, Ahson further teaches that the behavior of electromagnetic waves ("EM") waves next to metal surfaces is predictable, noting that the presence of metal can improve the performance of RFID tags by reflecting the RF signal. Ahson's only indication that metal may be absorptive is with regard to irregular metal surfaces. Appellant fails to direct our attention to any evidence that Claes sen' s metal housing provides irregular surfaces, nor do we find any. Therefore, on the present record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred reversibly in finding that Claessen's metal housing is RF reflective. Appellant argues further that the Examiner improperly relies on Appellant's Specification and drawings to establish that Claessen's metal housing is inherently RF reflective. Reply Br. 1-2. We disagree. In order to establish inherency, the Examiner must provide a reasonable basis for believing that a limitation, which is not expressly taught in a reference, is nonetheless inherent in the reference's teaching. Comparing the teaching of the reference to that of Appellant is one way in which that reasonable basis can be established, especially where, as here, no difference is found in construction or material between the two. Indeed, both Appellant and Claessen teach dual bar code scanner and RFID tag reader arrangements within metal housings. Appellant fails to direct our attention to any other 6 Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 structure or material that is responsible for producing the RF reflective housing. Therefore, it was reasonable for the Examiner to conclude that, with regard to the RF reflective housing, Claessen's and Appellant's housing are functionally identical. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's finding of anticipation of claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 by Claessen. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further requires an RF reflector provided behind the RF antenna and operative for reflecting the radiated RF energy through the window along a direction that is generally perpendicular to the window. The Examiner found that Claessen discloses that the RF antenna may include resonator 80 in the form of a conductive coating or sheet of metal on the backside surface 76 of antenna 32. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that Claessen fails to disclose that the resonator would operate to reflect RF energy or emit an RF signal along a direction that is generally perpendicular to window 68. Appeal Br. 10. However, just as discussed above, Claessen's resonator would inherently reflect RF energy produced by antenna 32 because it may be a metal sheet or coating behind the RF antenna. Moreover, although Appellant contends that Claessen fails to teach that the resonator reflects radiated RF energy through the window along a direction that is generally perpendicular to the window, Appellant fails to provide any persuasive technical reasoning or evidentiary showing in support of this contention. In this regard, we note that Appellant's Figure 5 shows that antenna 32 surrounds, but is not directly under, window 12, such that any reflector behind antenna 32 would reflect RF energy in a variety of angles through window 12. 7 Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's finding of anticipation of claims 5 and 15 by Claessen. Obviousness Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Claessen in view of Mieslinger. Final Act. 6-7. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the RF antenna is a loop that surrounds the window. The Examiner found that while Claessen teaches an antenna layer rather than an antenna loop, Mieslinger teaches an RFID antenna structure having a loop antenna. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have replaced Claessen's antenna structure with a loop antenna because such a substitution merely replaces one known antenna structure with another known antenna structure. Id. Appellant argues that there is no reason to combine the teachings of Claessen and Mieslinger, other than the potential interchangeability between the two antennae. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also argues that because Mieslinger's antenna is used in connection with RFID tags, there is no teaching that RFID tags and readers are interchangeable. Id. at 12-13. In this regard, Appellant urges that Mieslinger' s antenna structures are used in near-field applications, which would prove essentially useless in Claessen's scanner. We are not persuaded of reversible error. An express teaching need not be present in the art to support the substitution of one element for another element used for the same purpose. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 ( CCP A 19 82). Further, the substitution of one known element for another is obvious when the combination yields no more than a predictable result, as here (i.e., using the RF loop antenna of Mieslinger as the RF antenna of 8 Appeal2018-003476 Application 15/150,550 Claessen). KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). With regard to the alleged difference between RFID tags and RFID tag readers, we are not persuaded that such a difference would have prevented the use of a loop antenna in Claessen. "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852,859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane) (further citations omitted)). Appellant does not argue, nor do we find any evidence of record, that the substitution of a loop antenna into Claessen' s arrangement would have been beyond the ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of claims 4 and 14 over the combined teachings of Claessen and Mieslinger. DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Examiner's Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1- 20 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)(l). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation