Ex Parte Vaananen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2017

13625082 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
13/625,082 09/24/2012 Mikko VAANANEN P202503US1 1056
129597 7590
Mikko Kalervo Vaananen
PO Box 346
Street address: Unioninkatu 20-22, Suite B351
Helsinki, 00131
FINLAND
EXAMINER
WANG, JACK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2017 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):
patents @ suinno.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO VAANANEN
Appeal 2015-007631
Application 13/625/0821
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and J. JOHN LEE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—18, and 20—24,2 all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral
arguments on July 6, 2017.
We REVERSE.
1 The real party-in-interest appears to be Mikko Vaananen, the inventor. See
App. Br. 6.
2 Claims 3,11, and 19 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2015-007631
Application 13/625,082
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a system and method for keeping
track of personal belongings, etc., utilizing a mobile phone with a camera
and radio transceiver chips attached to the personal belongings. See Spec.
2:14—3:7.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'.
1. A communication system, comprising:
a plurality of radio transceiver or receiver chips, each one
of the transceiver or receiver chips being configured to be
attached to one of a plurality of specific trackable objects; and
a computer comprising a radio transmitter or transceiver
incorporated therein and a camera configured to photograph one
of the specific trackable objects untracked by the computer to
produce a photographic image,
wherein when the camera photographs the untracked
trackable object and produces the photographic image stored
at the computer, then the computer automatically transmits an
association signal to the transceiver or receiver chip attached
to the untracked trackable object and the computer associates
the photographic image of the untracked trackable object with
the association signal or a response to the association signal to
associate the transceiver or receiver chip attached to the
untracked trackable object with the photographic image and
create a tracked object, the computer being configured to
communicate with said transceiver or receiver chips, the
computer being configured such that the tracked object is able
to be selected by a user based on the stored photographic image
of the tracked object associated with the association signal or
the response to the association signal, the computer being
configured to send an alarm signal to the transceiver or receiver
chip attached to the selected tracked object,
wherein the transceiver or receiver chip attached to the
selected tracked object is configured to produce a sound, light
2
Appeal 2015-007631
Application 13/625,082
and/or vibration alarm in response to receiving the sent alarm
signal from the computer.
REJECTION ON APPEAL AND APPLIED PRIOR ART
Claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—18, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble et al. (US 2002/0126010 Al; Sept.
12, 2002) (“Trimble”) and Rosenblatt (US 2009/0175499 Al; July 9, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and Appellant’s
arguments in the Reply Brief. We are persuaded the Examiner erred. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Trimble teaches, among other things,
wherein when the camera photographs the trackable object untracked
by computer and produces a photographic image, then the computer
automatically transmits an association signal to the transceiver or
receiver chip attached to the trackable object and wherein when the
[user] press[es] any one of switches (41-44, Fig. 3) on the computer
(control unit) (138, Fig. 25) [it] automatically transmits an association
signal to the transceiver or receiver chip (RFID tag) (136, Fig. 30)
attached to the trackable object untracked by computer with the
photographic image (190, Fig. 30) [0116-0117]. . .
Final Act. 3 (citing Trimble ^fl[ 116—117, Figs. 3, 25, 30). The Examiner
further finds that Rosenblatt teaches
an identifying module (computer), a camera, a RFID reader, and
RFID tags, wherein the camera [is] configured to photograph one of
the specific trackable objects to produce a photographic image, and
the identifying module being configured to associate the photographic
image of the tracked objects associated with the association signal
transmitted to the transceiver or receiver chip attached to the selected
tracked object [0047].
Final Act. 3 (citing Rosenblatt 147).
3
Appeal 2015-007631
Application 13/625,082
The Examiner concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art could
have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in
combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does
separately.” Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner further explains that
[t]he results of the combination would have been predictable
and resulted in the computer being configured to associate the
photographic image of the trackable object untracked by
computer with the transceiver or receiver chip attached to the
trackable object, the photograph of the item being associated
with the transceiver chip attached to the trackable object by the
computer transmitting an activation signal to the transceiver
chip and associating the transmitted activation signal with the
photographic image of the tracked object, or a response to the
activation signal by the radio transceiver chip with the
photographic image of the tracked object, the computer being
configured to communicate with said transceiver or receiver
chips, the computer being configured such that the tracked
objects is able to be selected by a user based on the
photographic image of the tracked object, the computer being
configured to send an alarm signal to the transceiver or receiver
chip attached to the selected tracked object associated with the
association signal transmitted to the transceiver or receiver chip
attached to the selected trackable object.
Final Act. 4.
The Examiner asserts that Trimble discloses a “base” process of
locating an object employing RF signaling comprising a portable remote
controller, which indexes each trackable object associated with each
transmitter button with a text label on the controller that communicates with
an RFID tag attached to the object. See Ans. 3. The Examiner further
contends that the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” over
Trimble by replacing the text label on the portable remote controller with an
image taken by the mobile device. See id. The Examiner further asserts that
Rosenblatt’s known technique of utilizing a camera embedded in a portable
4
Appeal 2015-007631
Application 13/625,082
communication device and identifying the object would have been
recognized by one with ordinary skill in the art at applicable to the “base”
process of Trimble and would have resulted predictably in remotely locating
an object by sending a signal to the locating tag on the object of interest and
indexing each wireless locating signal transmitter buttons on the controller
with object images taken from the portable communication device. See id.
at 4.
Appellant argues that the core of the invention is the linking the
picture of the everyday item to the transceiver chip on the item with one
click of the mobile phone, a feature absent from Trimble and Rosenblatt.
See App. Br. 6. Appellant contends, “[t]he rejection does not acknowledge
in any way how the alleged combination of Trimble and Rosenblatt would
behave with new, unknown objects ([i.e.,] the untracked trackable object in
claim 1).” See Reply Br. 2—3.
We agree with Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner does not direct
us to sufficient evidence on this record to demonstrate that the combination
of Trimble and Rosenblatt teach or suggest
when the camera photographs the untracked trackable object and
produces the photographic image stored at the computer, then the
computer automatically transmits an association signal to the
transceiver . . . attached to the untracked trackable object and the
computer associates the photographic image of the untracked
trackable object with the association signal or a response [thereto]. . .
to associate the transceiver . . . with the photographic image and
create a tracked object,
as recited in claim 1. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings that Trimble
teaches these limitations (see Final Act. 3), the portions of Trimble cited by
the Examiner do not teach a camera, and do not teach that when a camera
photographs the untracked trackable object, then the control unit (i.e.,
5
Appeal 2015-007631
Application 13/625,082
computer) automatically transmits an association signal to the untracked
trackable object and associates the untracked trackable object with the
photographic image to create a tracked object. Instead, the relied portions of
Trimble disclose a user activating a switch on a control unit that is labelled
to correspond to an already tracked object so as to activate the RFID tag on
the tracked object to sound an alarm to facilitate location of the tracked
object. See Trimble 102, 117, Fig. 3. Further, the relied upon portions of
Rosenblatt disclose utilizing a portable electronic device to capture images
of objects to be identified and identifying the objects utilizing an
identification database. See Rosenblatt || 47, 58, 62—64. Contrary to the
Examiner’s findings, the cited portions of Rosenblatt are silent with respect
to associating the photographic image of the object with an association
signal transmitted to the transceiver or receiver chip attached to the object.
The Examiner also does not explain with sufficient detail how one
with ordinary skill in the art would have modified Trimble’s teachings of
activating a labelled switch on a control unit corresponding to an already
tracked object, to activate the RFID tag on the tracked object to sound an
alarm, with Rosenblatt’s teachings of capturing images of objects to be
identified, and identifying the objects utilizing an identification database to
achieve the claimed invention. Specifically, the Examiner does not explain
with sufficient detail how one with ordinary skill in the art would have
modified Trimble’s teachings with Rosenblatt’s teachings to arrive at
automatically transmitting an association signal to the transceiver attached to
an untracked trackable object when a camera photographs the untracked
trackable object, and associating the photographic image with the
association signal to associate the transceiver with the photographic image to
create a tracked object, as required by claim 1.
6
Appeal 2015-007631
Application 13/625,082
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1, independent claims 9 and 17 which recite similar
limitations as claim 1, and claims 2, 4—8, 10, 12—16, 18, and 20-24,
dependent therefrom, as unpatentable over Trimble and Rosenblatt.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—18, and 20-24.
REVERSED
7