Ex Parte Jovanovski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

12817246 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/817,246 06/17/2010 Brian Jovanovski
108134 7590 09/21/2018
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.
H0025885 5125
EXAMINER
GUDORF, LAURA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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 BRIAN JOV ANOVSKI, DANIEL VANVOLKINBURG, and
ALEXEY CHEMY AKOV 1
Appeal2017---004822
Application 12/817 ,246
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Honeywell International,
Inc.
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14--19. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
Claim 1. An indicia reader configured for hand held
operation by a user comprising:
a scanning engine for scanning information bearing
indicia (IBI) and providing output signals representative
thereof;
at least one memory space for storing; output scan
signals;
at least one decoding program for decoding IBis from
the stored output scan signals;
at least one operating program for controlling
operation of the indicia reader;
a plurality of configuration settings, wherein each of
the plurality of configuration settings corresponds to a
different operational parameter of the indicia reader and
wherein each of the plurality of configuration settings
corresponds to only one operational parameter of the indicia
reader;
a tracking program for tracking the decoding of IBis
and the configuration settings when decoding occurs;
a configuration changing program for changing
configuration settings; and, at least one processor for
executing:
2
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
the at least one decoding program and the at least one
operating program in accordance with the configuration
settings,
the tracking program, and
the configuration changing program,
wherein for each unsuccessful attempt to decode an
IBI the at least one processor executes the configuration
setting program to change only one configuration setting,
wherein the tracking program tracks all attempted
decoding of IBls, stores the configuration settings and sets
the default indicia reader configuration settings with the
configuration settings that resulted in the most successful
reads;
wherein the configuration setting program selects
which configuration setting to change based upon a
predetermined sequence; and
wherein the predetermined sequence is directly
determined by a user.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Bridgelall et al.
Krichever
Brandt et al.
Saporetti et al.
Longacre Jr. et al.
Joseph et al.
us 5,608,202
US 2002/0117547 Al
US 2003/0057282 Al
US 6,616,039 Bl
US 2004/0206821 Al
US 2006/0011724 Al
3
Mar. 4, 1997
Aug. 29, 2002
Mar. 27, 2003
Sept. 9, 2003
Oct. 21, 2004
Jan. 19,2006
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected as being obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bridgelall in view of Saporetti, and further in view of
Longacre.
2. Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected as being obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bridgelall in view of Saporetti and Longacre, and
further in view of Joseph.
3. Claims 16-19 are rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Krichever in view of Brandt, and further in view of Longacre.
ANALYSIS
To the extent that Appellants have presented substantive arguments
for the separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will
address them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii). Claims
1 and 16 are selected for consideration in this appeal based upon Appellants'
arguments.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of the
respective positions of the Examiner and Appellants, we find that the
preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner's findings
and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims is unpatentable
over the applied art. Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner's
rejections on appeal for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and
in the Answer, with the following emphasis.
4
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
Rejections 1 and 2_g
The Examiner's findings and reasoning (for Rejections 1 and 2) are
set forth on pages 2-12 of the Answer, which we incorporate herein. In
short, with respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner relies upon the
primary reference of Bridgelall for teaching the claimed subject matter, but
states that Bridgelall does not explicitly teach an embodiment where each
configuration setting corresponds to a different operational parameter, and
where each configuration setting corresponds to only one
operational parameter, and where for each unsuccessful attempt to decode an
IBI, the processor executes the configuration setting program to change only
one configuration setting. Ans. 2--4. The Examiner states that Bridgelall
also does not teach that the predetermined sequence is directly determined
by a user. Ans. 4.
The Examiner relies upon Saporetti for teaching such limitations in
col. 3, 11. 46-50; col. 6, 11. 26--43; col. 7, 11. 49-54; and col. 8, 11. 7-29. Ans.
4--5. The Examiner finds that Saporetti teaches an embodiment where, for
each unsuccessful attempt to decode an information bearing indicia ("IBI"),
at least one processor executes a configuration setting program to change
only one configuration setting, citing col. 6, 11. 26--43; col. 7, 11. 49-54; and
col. 8, 11. 7-29. Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Bridgelall and Saporetti
does not set forth that the predetermined sequence is directly determined by
a user. The Examiner relies upon Longacre for teaching a configuration
2 Appellants focus their arguments on the references of Bridgelall, Saporetti
and Longacre. We thus focus on these references in making our
determinations herein.
5
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
setting changing program that selects which configuration setting to change
based upon a predetermined sequence directly determined by a user.
Specifically, that a user has the ability to edit a parameter table stored in the
memory of the reader to enable/disable certain reader parameters. Ans. 5
( citing Longacre ,r 23).
Appellants disagree that Saporetti teaches the features relied upon by
the Examiner. Appeal Br. 12. Appellants submit that Saporetti teaches
entirely different technical features, and therefore, one skilled in the art
would not have combined Bridgelall and Saporetti to arrive at the claims.
Appeal Br. 12. Appellants argue that the Examiner's assertion that Saporetti
teaches a method where each configuration setting corresponds to a different
operational parameter and to only one operational parameter, and for each
unsuccessful attempt to decode an IBI, the processor executes
a configuration setting program to change only one configuration setting, is
not supported by the Examiner's reliance upon columns 6-8 of Saporetti
because Saporetti teaches therein
an "initial self-learning" operative condition where the reader is
doing a full calibration where: "the values of all the measuring
quantities are measured or calculated" ( col. 5, lines 50-54),
"[t]his step, repeated during the self-learning step for each
acquired image ... allow[ s] scanning of all possible values of
the controlled parameters" ( col. 7, line 65-col. 8, line 3), "the
reading system attempts, in successive acquisitions, to set all
the possible focusing positions, starting from an initial setting"
( col. 8, lines 9-12), and the "other controlled parameters are set
analogously, and their initial values can be modified
simultaneously with the focusing position value" ( col. 8, lines
24-26).
Appeal Br. 13.
6
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
We are not persuaded by the aforementioned arguments for the
reasons provided in response by the Examiner, on pages 15-16 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that Appellants are
selectively ignoring the alternative teachings in Saporetti disclosed in
column 8, at 11. 7-29, reproduced below:
A first reading is attempted on a first object or on a first group
of objects moving beneath the device 10, at a first height ( e.g.
10cm), using a first focusing position value: if the outcome of
this attempt is negative, a second reading is attempted on a
second object or on a second group of objects arranged at the
same first height, with a second focusing position value and so
on. The other control parameters are set analogously, and their
initial values can be modified simultaneously with the
focusing position value, or at the end of the entire setting
sequence for the focusing position, if the sequence has not led
to identify series of values allowing reading of a code.
It is the Examiner's position that the aforementioned section of
Saporetti discloses setting of control parameters individually as
an alternative to simultaneously setting control parameters. Ans. 15-16. The
Examiner states that while the other control parameters can be modified
simultaneously with the focusing position value, the cited section
specifically states that they can be also be set after the focusing position
value if the sequence of focusing position values does not lead to identifying
series of values allowing reading of a code. Ans. 16. We agree and no reply
brief is of record in dispute thereof.
Next, Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not have
combined Bridgelall and Saporetti with Longacre to arrive at the claimed
indicia reader wherein "for each unsuccessful attempt to decode an IBI, the
configuration setting program changes only one configuration setting based
7
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
upon a predetermined sequence directly determined by a user," because
Longacre describes an entirely different technical structure and function.
Appeal Br. 14. In support of this assertion, Appellants refer to ,r,r 20, 21, 32,
and 233 of Longacre, and argue that all of the menu options discussed
by Longacre therein are directed towards a reader that can be entirely
reprogrammed to recognize "new function, new barcode symbologies and
new and updated decoding programs" (Longacre ,r 32). Appeal Br. 13-14.
In response, the Examiner states that the technical features of the
reader of Longacre is not incompatible with the readers of Bridgelall and
Saporetti because each reader is directed to automated indicia reading and
decoding. Ans. 17. The Examiner explains that the parameter table
disclosed in Longacre edited by the user corresponds to "a predetermined
sequence directly determined by the user" which dictates how and in which
order the reader changes reading configuration parameters after each
unsuccessful read. Id. The Examiner states that Longacre
discusses providing users with editing power over a parameter table which
specifies a plurality of control parameters and configuration settings
(Longacre, table depicted in Fig. 7B). Ans. 17. The Examiner states that
the order in which the enabled/disabled parameters appear in the table is
indicative of a sequence directly determined by the user in which the reader
attempts to decode a symbol (as depicted in Longacre's Figure 20). Id. We
agree and no reply brief is of record in dispute thereof.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1. We also affirm
Rejection 2 for the same reasons because Appellants do not separately argue
the claims rejected in Rejection 2.
8
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
Rejection 3~
With regard to claim 16, the Examiner's findings and reasoning (for
Rejection 3) are set forth on pages 12-14 of the Answer, which we
incorporate herein.
Appellants argue that Longacre fails to describe "changing only one
of the plurality of configuration settings if scanning of the second IBI is
under a second condition without intervention of the user, based upon a
predetermined sequence directly determined by the user" as recited in claim
16, because Longacre is describing a wholesale reprogramming of a reader,
and simply does not describe a "second condition without intervention of the
user." Appeal Br. 14.
In response, the Examiner states that Krichever ( the primary
reference) is relied upon for teaching changing only one of the plurality of
configuration settings if scanning of the second IBI is under a second
condition without intervention of the user. Ans. 17. The Examiner explains
that the teachings of Longacre are relied upon solely for the purpose of
obviating "a predetermined sequence directly determined by the user." Ans.
17-18. The Examiner explains that the parameter table (of Figure 7B)
edited by the user according to Longacre directly corresponds to
"a predetermined sequence directly determined by the user" as claimed. The
Examiner states that Longacre teaches providing users with editing power
over a parameter table which specifies a plurality of control parameters and
configuration settings (see Figure 7B). Ans. 18. The Examiner also states
that the order in which the enabled/disabled parameters appear in the table is
3 Appellants only discuss the Longacre reference in this rejection. Appeal
Br. 14.
9
Appeal2017-004822
Application 12/817 ,246
indicative of a sequence directly determined by the user in which the reader
attempts to decode a symbol (as depicted in Longacre's Figure 20). Id. We
agree, and add that Appellants' arguments do not address squarely the merits
of the rejection (Appellants do not address the references in the manner in
which the Examiner relied upon them and do not discuss the primary
reference at all), and are therefore unpersuasive.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 3.
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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
10