Ex Parte K¿ng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12741809 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/741,809 08/13/2010 Roland K^ng H30217 9967
113760 7590 03/02/2017
HONFYWFT T /OT TFF PT C EXAMINER
115 Tabor Road AFRIFA-KYEI, ANTHONY D
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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 @ honey well, com
Office Action 113760 @ oliff. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLAND KUNG and GERHARD GANGL
Appeal 2016-003213
Application 12/741,809
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 28-49, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-003213
Application 12/741,809
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosure relates to a radio frequency identification
(RFID) network, in which “part of the resources and intelligence of the
controller are distributed to, or forwarded to, an RFID system unit.”
Abstract. Claims 28, 31, and 49 are independent. Claim 28 is reproduced
below for reference (with emphasis added):
28. A radio frequency identification (RFID) network system,
the system comprising:
multiple RFID read-write devices for processing
electronic RFID labels,
wherein the multiple RFID read-write devices each form
an RFID system unit, and wherein each of RFID system unit
includes:
a mission reception device configured to receive
mission messages, and
a first network interface; and
a central controller comprising:
a mission sending device configured to send
mission messages to each of the mission reception devices in the
RFID system units; and
a second network interface coupled via a
communication network with the first network interface of all of
the RFID system units, and
wherein each mission message includes at least one of:
adjustment parameters, a list of parameters with degrees of
freedom, and a schedule of times and instructions to process data
received from the RFID labels by the RFID read-write devices
that form part of each of the RFID system units,
wherein each of the RFID system units operate
autonomously according to instruction packets specified in its
mission message, and the central controller does not directly
control each individual action performed by each of the RFID
system units, and
further wherein each mission message includes a start
time and a duration of implementation of the mission message.
2
Appeal 2016-003213
Application 12/741,809
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 28, 29, 31—33, 35—46, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mochizuki (US 2007/0188328 Al; Aug.
16, 2007), Ashili (US 7,398,932 B2; July 15, 2008), and Stephensen (US
7,567,179 B2; July 28, 2009). Final Act. 2.
Claims 30 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mochizuki, Ashili, Stephensen, and Stewart (US
2006/0279406 Al; Dec. 14, 2006). Final Act. 8.
Claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mochizuki, Ashili, Stephensen, and Chakraborty (US
2007/0046467 Al; Mar. 1, 2007). Final Act. 9.
Claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mochizuki, Ashili, Stephensen, and Husak (US
2006/0022801 Al; Feb. 2, 2006). Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred by finding Mochizuki teaches
“each mission message includes a start time and a duration of
implementation of the mission message,” as required by claim 28. See, e.g.,
App. Br. 19—20; Reply Br. 5. Appellants contend that “Mochizuki says
nothing about the instructions having time and duration in the instructions
themselvesand “[jjust because there is an anti-collision feature [in
Mochizuki], this does not mean that there is anything in the mission message
itself about timing.” Reply Br. 5, 6.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds that
Mochizuki teaches the disputed limitation, because the reference “discloses
3
Appeal 2016-003213
Application 12/741,809
each read/write device ... to have an anticollision function that allows
reading/writing of RFID tags to be done at a given time slot using the well
known in the art ALOHA system method to regulate start and finish times of
operation.” Answer 5 (citing Mochizuki 146). We disagree, and find the
claimed “mission message” that “includes a start time and a duration of
implementation of the mission message” precludes the “conventional
ALOHA system” as described by Mochizuki.
According to Mochizuki, the ALOHA system is “an anti-collision
function that allows reading of a plurality of RFID tags at a time.”
Mochizuki 146. This anti-collision function serves as timing instructions to
control the RFID tags. Claim 1 similarly recites a mission message that
includes instructions to control an RFID tag. Claim 1, however, further
requires the mission message to include timing “of the mission message”
(emphasis added). We agree with Appellants that this additional mission
message timing does not encompass Mochizuki’s anti-collision timing,
because such anti-collision timing is of the RFID tags, not “of the mission
message” as claimed. See Reply Br. 5. Further, we find Mochizuki is silent
regarding a mission message that “includes a start time and a duration of
implementation of the mission message.”
We are persuaded Mochizuki does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation of claim 28, and the Examiner does not rely on the other cited
references for such teachings. See Final Act. 2—3 and Ans. 5. Accordingly,
we find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 28, and
independent claims 31 and 49 which recite similar limitations. Thus, we are
constrained by this record to reverse the rejections of the independent claims
and the claims that depend therefrom.
4
Appeal 2016-003213
Application 12/741,809
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 28-49 are reversed.
REVERSED
5