13685750 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 2016

13685750 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/685,750 11/27/2012 Richard M. Martin 126568 7590 08/18/2016 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. CM15718 7476 EXAMINER BROWN, CLAUDE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2887 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/18/2016 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 RICHARD M. MARTIN, JAEHO CHOI, IAN R. JENKINS, CHANDRA M. NAIR, and KONSTANTINOS D. TSIOPANOS Appeal2015-000483 Application 13/685,750 Technology Center 2800 Before: THU A. DANG, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-000483 Application 13/685,750 STATEMENT OF CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from final rejections of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. CLAIMED INVENTION The claimed invention relates to hands-free data acquisition for mobile devices. (Spec. i-f 2.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A mobile device, comprising: a housing having a pistol grip portion; a data acquisition device positioned in the housing adjacent to the pistol grip portion for acquiring data from an object, the data acquisition device generating an electrical signal representative of the data; a control for activating the data acquisition device; a processor for receiving the electrical signal from the data acquisition device; and a support worn on a torso of a user for supporting the housing by the pistol grip portion such that the data acquisition device is positioned to acquire data from the object when the object is located in front of the torso of the user, the support enabling hands-free operation of the mobile device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: 2 Appeal2015-000483 Application 13/685,750 Melitsky et al. Shepard Katoh et al. Schluter et al. Schmidt at al. Yen Yoshizawa us 5,250,790 us 5,837,990 us 5,970, 184 US 7 ,065,299 B2 US 2008/0128512 Al US 2009/0039162 Al US 2009/0266899 Al REJECTIONS Oct. 5, 1993 Nov. 17, 1998 Oct. 19, 1999 June 20, 2006 June 5, 2008 Feb. 12,2009 Oct. 29, 2009 Claims 1--4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yen and Schluter. (Final Act. 3.) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yen, Schluter, and Schmidt. (Final Act. 4.) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yen, Schluter, and Katoh. (Final Act. 5.) Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yen, Schluter, and Melitsky. (Final Act. 6.) Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yen, Schluter, and Smith. (Final Act. 7.) Claims 12-15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schluter and Yen. (Final Act. 8.) Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schluter, Yen, and Schmidt. (Final Act. 9.) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schluter, Yen, and Katoh. (Final Act. 10.) 3 Appeal2015-000483 Application 13/685,750 Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schluter, Yen, and Melitsky. (Final Act. 10.) Claims 21and22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schluter, Yen, and Smith. (Final Act. 11.) ISSUES Appellants raise the issues of whether the combination of Schluter and Yen teaches or suggests the elements of (i) "a control for activating the data acquisition device" in independent claim 1 and (ii) "a control for activating the imager" in independent claim 12. (Br. 5---6, 8-9.) ANALYSIS Claims 1--4 and 7 The Examiner finds Yen teaches or suggests "a control for activating the data acquisition device," as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 3, Ans. 2-3.) Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in making this finding by equating the reflected light from Yen's bar code with the recited control, when the Specification discloses a sensor, switch, timer, a motion sensor, a speech recognition, and video analytical module as controls. (Br. 5---6.) We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. First, contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner does not equate the reflected light from Yen's barcode with the recited control. (Ans. 3.) Instead, the Examiner identifies the receipt of RF signal 257, its transmission to microprocessor 217, and the resulting control signal 217 as the recited control. (Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 2-3, citing Yen i-fi-128-29.) 4 Appeal2015-000483 Application 13/685,750 Second, although the Specification discloses a sensor, switch, timer, a motion sensor, a speech recognition, and video analytical module as controls, the Specification does not limit the term "control" to those specific items. (Spec.i-fi-f 6-7, 45--46; Ans. 2.) And Appellants present no persuasive arguments or evidence showing that the receipt and transmission of RF signal 257 to microprocessor 217 and control signal 217, which activates the scanning light that allows the imager to read the bar code, fail to constitute or at least suggest the recited control. (Final Act. 12-13; Br. 5---6; Ans. 2-3, Yen i1i1 28-29.) Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner findings and reasoning regarding Yen and the disputed element of claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2--4 and 7, not separately argued. (Final Act. 12-13; Br. 5---6; Ans. 2-3, citing Yen i1i1 28-29.) Claims 5, 6, 8-11 Appellants present the same arguments for claims 5, 6, and 8-11 as for independent claim 1. (Br. 6-7.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 5, 6, and 8-11. Claims 12-15 and 18 Appellants contend that the combination of Schluter and Yen fails to teach or suggest the element of "a control for activating the imager" in independent claim 12. (Br. 8.) Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by equating the light reflected by the barcode in Schluter with the recited control, when the Specification discloses a sensor, switch, timer, a motion sensor, a speech recognition, and video analytical module as controls. (Br. 8-9.) We are not persuaded by this argument. First, contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner does not equate the light reflected from Schluter's bar code with the recited control. (Final 5 Appeal2015-000483 Application 13/685,750 Act. 8, Ans. 6-7.) The Examiner identifies keypad 38 as the recited control. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 6-7.) Second, as discussed above, although the Specification discloses a sensor, switch, timer, a motion sensor, a speech recognition, and video analytical module as controls, it does not define the term control as limited to those items. (Ans. 2, 6; Spec. i-fi-16-7, 45--46.) Here, keypad 38 in Schluter activates the light emitting diode that produces the light reflected to the imager, which allows the imager to image the bar code, the image of which is then decoded by Schluter's control circuity. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 6- 7.; Schluter 3 :21--43) Appellants present no persuasive arguments or evidence indicating that, with such characteristics, this keypad is neither the recited control nor suggests the recited control. (Br. 8-9.) Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning regarding Schluter and the disputed element in claim 12, and we sustain the rejection of claim 12 and of claims 13-15 and 18, not separately argued. (Final Act. 8; Br. 8-9; Ans. 6-7; Schluter 3:21--43.) Claims 16, 17, and 19-22 Appellants present the same arguments for claims 16, 17, and 19-22 as for claim 12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19-22. (Br. 9-11.) DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1-22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6