Ex Parte Thuries et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 15, 2004

09127713 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SERGE THURIES and JEAN-LOUIS MASSIEU
_____________
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 and 3-23.
The invention is directed to a system for programming symbol readers. Through
a graphical menu, a user is able to select desired commands and parameter values for
such programming. The invention is concerned with supplying a parameterization
process for printed code scanners allowing rapid parameterization of those scanners in
a readily repeated and unlimited manner. The claimed process enables a configuration
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
2
card to be obtained and that card is reusable at will, without requiring special storage
means, readily enabling one or more identical scanners to be parameterized and rapidly
implementing a new parameterization procedure, without risk of error.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A process for the parameterization of scanners for one-dimensional
and two-dimensional printed codes, comprising:
defining in a character coding symbology a number of character
strings representing a number of parameterization commands, a number
of parameter values for one or more parameters assigned to at least one
of the parameterization commands;
storing all the character strings in a computer-readable media;
establishing a display menu of the parameterization commands and
the parameter values;
receiving selections for at least two of the parameterization
commands and the parameter values;
assembling all the character strings representing the selected
parameterization commands and the selected parameter values in at least
one sequence of character strings of a maximum length at the most equal
to a length of a scanning range of the scanner, where at least one of the
sequences of character strings includes at least two of the character
strings representing the selected parameterization commands and
parameter values;
printing the assembled one sequence of character strings as a
graphical symbol; and
reading by means of the scanner the printed graphical symbol.
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
3
The examiner relies on the following references:
Poland 4,825,058 Apr. 25, 1989
Wilz et al. (Wilz) 5,777,315 Jul. 07, 1998
(effective filing date Feb. 16, 1995)
Claims 1 and 3-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner cites Wilz with regard to all of the claims, adding Poland in
an additional rejection of claim 4.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that appellants group the claims into two distinct groups,
claims 1-16 and 21 forming one group and claims 17-20, 22 and 23 forming the other
group. The groups are argued separately and all the claims in each group stand or fall
together. However, we do note that appellants make a separate argument with regard
to claim 1 (e.g., brief-page 12). The first group of claims, as represented by claim 19, is
directed to a computer interface display menu of user selectable commands and
parameter values. The second group of claims, represented by claim 12, is directed, in
addition to the computer interface display menu, to a graphic or sequence of character
strings having a maximum length at the most equal to the length of the scanning range
of the symbol reader, where the graphic or sequence of character strings represents at
least two parameterization commands or values.
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
4
Turning first to claim 12, it is the examiner’s position (answer-pages 3-4) that
Wilz teaches a process for the parameterization of scanners for a one-dimensional bar
code or two-dimensional code. The examiner says that Wilz inherently selects a
“character coding symbology” (answer-page 3) and defines a number of character
strings representing parameterization commands (referring to the abstract) and a
number of parameters assigned to the commands (referring to Figures 10, 10A and 17);
stores all the character strings (referring to the abstract and Figure 8); and establishes a
display menu of suggested options for each command and suggested values for each
parameter (referring to Figures 9, 10 and 10A). The examiner further contends that
Wilz , at the time of parameterization of a specified bar code scanner, selects the
appropriate command and parameter for each parameterization command and each
parameter possibly assigned to the command (referring to Figure 12, step D);
reassembles all the selected character strings representing the parameterization
commands and the possibly assigned parameters, in at least one sequence of character
strings of maximum length at the most equal to the length of the scanning range of the
scanner (referring to Figure 1); converts each sequence of character
strings so as to obtain a corresponding graphical symbol (referring to Figures 12-15);
edits a card containing each graphical symbol obtained (referring to Figures 14 and 15);
and reads, via the scanner, each graphical symbol so as to store all the
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
5
parameterization commands and possibly assigned parameters (referring to Figure 14,
step 97).
The examiner realizes that Wilz does not teach assembling the selections for at
least two of the parameterization commands and the parameter values and assembling
all the selected character strings representing the parameterization commands and the
selected parameter values . . . where at least one of the sequences of character strings
includes at least two of the character strings representing the selected parameterization
commands and parameter values. As explained by the examiner, at pages 4-5 of the
answer, “while Wilz does teach assembling the parameterization commands in a series
(a book), Wilz does not teach the use of two dimensional codes which would meet this
claim language.” The examiner then takes “Official Notice” (answer-page 5) that “two
dimensional codes as a replacement for series of one dimensional codes which much
(sic, must?) be read in succession is old and well known in the art.”
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to replace the booklet
of Wilz containing successions of one-dimensional codes with a two dimensional code
because many two dimensional codes are known to be compact, space efficient
replacements for series of one dimensional codes, which two dimensional codes can be
read in a single scan” (answer-page 5).
Appellants argue that Wilz does not teach a display menu for allowing users to
select parameterization commands and values for parameterizing or setting up a
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
6
symbol reader because Wilz is concerned with identically copying a parameterization or
setup of a master bar code reader that does not allow user selection of commands and
values. Thus, appellants argue, Wilz does not provide for editing a sequence of
parameters by displaying a menu because the goal of Wilz is to program a bar code
symbol reader to have the same function parameters as a master bar code symbol
reader and, therefore, Wilz would have no reason to provide a menu of user selectable
choices if the goal is to copy a set of parameters identically from one reader to another
(brief-page 9).
The examiner’s response is to point to column 15, lines 39-41, of Wilz for the
disclosure of “the bar code symbol reader hereof may be programmed into any one of
typically tens of thousands of different possible Function Configuration States.” The
examiner concludes that this evidences a flexibility in programming bar code readers,
“and as a subset of this flexibility, using a particular master configured according to
numerous possible configurations, to create several copies of the particular master
selected” (answer-page 7). Apparently, the examiner contends that since this is done
with the aid of a “function parameter reading computer” which may use MS-DOS,
Microsoft Windows, etc. and all of these systems “are known to contain menu driven
software” (answer-page 7), Wilz must be suggesting receiving commands and
parameter values selected from a computer display menu of commands and parameter
values.
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
7
We disagree.
We do agree with appellant that Wilz discloses the copying of a set of
parameters identically and, as such, would not particularly need a menu of user
selectable choices. However, Wilz is not limited to merely identically copying a set of
parameters, i.e., the “clone” mode. As indicated at column 15, lines 48-62, of Wilz, a
user selects functions “for either mastering or cloning a bar code symbol
scanner/reader.” Therefore, since a user selects functions when programming a master
(Function Programming Mode), Wilz does disclose an embodiment wherein user
selections are made, and not merely copied.
Accordingly, one may wish to provide a menu for the user in Wilz. Unfortunately,
for the examiner’s position, we find no suggestion of a display menu in Wilz nor has the
examiner established a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have
been led to provide such a display menu. While Wilz does mention MS-DOS, Microsoft
Windows, etc. and all of these systems, as stated by the examiner, “are known to contain
menu driven software,” there is no suggestion in Wilz of “establishing a display menu of
the parameterization commands and the parameter values” (claim 1) or “receiving a
number of scanner commands and scanner parameter values selected from a computer
display menu of commands and parameter values” (claim 12) or “generating a computer
interface menu of user selectable commands and parameter values” (claim 17) or
“selecting a number of symbol reader commands and symbol reader parameters from a
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
8
graphical user interface menu” (claim 19) or “means for generating a computer interface
menu of user selectable commands and parameter values” (claim 23).
Wilz indicates that function parameters can be set by reading one or more
corresponding function-encoded bar code symbols off a preprinted Bar Code Symbol
Programming Guide (column 15, lines 55-58) but there is no suggestion in the reference
of employing a displayed user menu, as required by the instant claims. The examiner
points to a laptop computer in Figure 9 and a menu for reading out commands in Figure
14 as evidence of a display for “menuing software” (answer-page 8). We have no doubt
that displayed user menus were known in the art at the time of the invention and that
such menus could have been used, as claimed, in the Wilz system. But in order to
conclude that it would have been obvious to do so, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§103, the examiner needed to espouse some convincing reason that would have led the
artisan to employ a displayed user menu of parameterization commands and parameter
values in Wilz. In our view, the examiner has not done so.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§103 over Wilz.
Even with the addition of Poland, in the additional rejection of claim 4, the
examiner employs Poland for a teaching of “a final identification code (the exit
configuration code) for programming the reader” (answer-page 6) and concludes that it
would have been obvious to have an end configuration code as taught by Poland in the
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
9
parameterization scheme taught by Wilz “because this would separate the functions of
the reader between data collection and programming, preventing the reader from being
accidentally re-programmed during data collection” (answer-page 6).
Whether or not it would have been obvious to combine Wilz and Poland, it is clear
from the examiner’s employment of Poland that Poland does not remedy the deficiency
of Wilz as outlined supra. Accordingly, we also will not sustain the rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Wilz and Poland.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/vsh
Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
10
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 6300
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092