Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2014

11956052 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JICHUAN XU, YINGFEI WU, and ZHUOCHENG JIA
____________

Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MICHAEL W. KIM, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jichuan Xu et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moshier (US 2008/0109099 A1, pub. May 8, 2008),
Campagna (US 7,388,494 B2, iss. Jun. 17, 2008), and Patel
(US 7,855,639 B2, iss. Dec. 21, 2010). We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal. We have added
“[A],” “[B],” “[C],” and “[D]” for easier reference in our analysis below:
1. A method for forecasting the location of a mineworker in
an underground mine having a complex arrangement of
interconnecting passageways having at least one entrance via a
network utilizing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
technology when the mineworker is out of range of all RFID
readers in the network, wherein the network consists of a
plurality of nodes connected with each other, at least one RFID
reader having a monitoring range is disposed at each node of
the network, said method comprising:
[A] providing at least one RFID tag adapted to be
physically attached to the mineworker: [sic]
[B] generating a record data related to the mineworker
when the mineworker moves along the complex arrangement of
interconnecting passageways within the monitoring range of an
RFID reader disposed at a node based upon one or more of the
conditions of the underground mine network, the personal
information of the mineworker and the properties of the mining
tasks of the mineworker;
[C] statistically processing the record data to estimate the
location of the mineworker, wherein statistically processing the
record data includes calculating a probability of the mineworker
moving from a first node of the network to a second node of the
network, and wherein calculating the probability of the
mineworker moving from the first node to the second node
within the interconnecting passageways includes using the
record data to determine a statistical number of times the
mineworker has moved from the first node to the second node;
and
[D] creating and displaying to a rescue force an optimal
moving route for the mineworker during a mine catastrophe
through the complex arrangement of interconnecting
passageways from the estimated location of the mineworker to
the entrance which covers the shortest, safest or least congested
route.
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue all claims 1–17 together as a group. See App. Br. 9–
16; Reply Br. 2–6. We select claim 1 to decide the appeal as to all claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2011).
Claim Construction of Claim 1
The Examiner and the Appellants have a claim construction dispute
concerning step [B] of claim 1, set forth above. The Examiner contends
step [B] requires generating a record data related to the mineworker based
on any one of (i) the conditions of the underground mine network, (ii) the
personal information of the mineworker, or (iii) the properties of the mining
tasks of the mineworker. See Ans. 11–12. Appellants respond that, in order
to statistically process the record data to estimate the location of the
mineworker as required in step [C], the record data recited in step [B] must
“necessarily incorporate the tasks of the mineworker and the conditions of
the mine.” Reply Br. 4–5. Thus, according to Appellants, the record data
must be based on all three bases (i), (ii), and (iii). See also id. at 6.
We agree with the Examiner. The phrase “one or more” recited in
step [B] indicates explicitly that claim 1 only requires the record data to be
based on any one of the recited bases (i), (ii), or (iii) — not all three.
Moreover, we do not agree with Appellants’ suggestion that the record data
must include bases (i) and (iii) in order to implement step [C]. For example,
the record data could instead simply contain basis (ii) (personal information
identifying the mineworker) and a record of the mineworker’s route through
the mine, independent of the conditions of the mine and the tasks assigned to
the mineworker. Thus, we apply the Examiner’s proposed construction in
our analysis below.
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

4
Moshier Disclosure
The Examiner cites Moshier as disclosing the subject matter of
claim 1 recited in the preamble, step [A], step [B], step [C]’s requirement of
“processing the record data to estimate the location of the mineworker,” and
all of step [D] except for “displaying to a rescue force.” See Ans. 5–7.
Appellants contend Moshier fails to disclose the step [B] requirement
of generating a record data related to the mineworker based upon one or
more of (i) the conditions of the underground mine network, (ii) the personal
information of the mineworker, and (iii) the properties of the mining tasks of
the mineworker. See App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3–5. As construed above, this
limitation is met if Moshier discloses generating a record data based on any
one of those three bases. Appellants challenge the Examiner’s findings with
respect to bases (i) and (iii), but not base (ii). See id. As to base (ii), the
Examiner concluded Moshier correspondingly discloses record data that
“identifies a particular tag (para. [0032] lines 6–8) and thereby a particular
person (para. [0043] lines 6–10).” Ans. 6. We sustain the Examiner’s
conclusion because it is not challenged by Appellants, and also because it is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants contend Moshier fails to disclose the step [D] requirement
of “creating . . . an optimal moving route for the mineworker during a mine
catastrophe through the complex arrangement of interconnecting
passageways” which covers the safest route from the estimated location.
See App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2–3. We are not persuaded. In particular, the
Examiner cites the following passage from Moshier as disclosing that
claimed subject matter:
In the event of an emergency (such as a mine cave-in), the
process control server 106 can identify the actual or estimated
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

5
locations of personnel at step 1106 and provide these locations
at step 1108. The actual positions could be determined using
data currently being received. The estimated positions could be
determined using stored historical data upon a loss of
communication with the personnel’s devices that provide
location information. This may allow, for example, rescuers to
identify the actual or estimated positions of people to be
rescued. This may also allow the personnel’s positions to be
coordinated with gas or fire detection systems to identify safe
passage for the personnel out of an area.
Moshier, ¶ 0083 (emphasis added); see Ans. 6, 10–11. We agree with the
Examiner that Moshier therein discloses creating an optimal moving route
for a mineworker during a mine catastrophe through the complex
arrangement of interconnecting passageways, which covers the safest route
from the estimated location.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain over Appellants’ objections the
Examiner’s findings as to the Moshier disclosure and claim 1.
Campagna Disclosure
The Examiner cites Campagna as disclosing the particular statistical
processing operations recited in step [C] of claim 1. See Ans. 6–7.
Appellants contend that conclusion was in error, because “Campagna merely
predicts the probability that a person or object will be in a particular location
at any one instant in time” by “predicting real world states.” App. Br. 11–
12; see also Reply Br. 5 (referring to sensor “detection points”).
We conclude the Examiner’s analysis of claim 1 and the Campagna
disclosure is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ans. 6–7,
12–13. That is, step [C] of claim 1 recites statistically processing the record
data to estimate the location of a worker. Campagna correspondingly
discloses observing RFID sensor tag information of a worker in a building to
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

6
estimate the location of the worker. See Ans. 12; Campagna, abs., 1:63–2:4,
figs. 2–3. Claim 1 further requires the processing to include calculating a
probability of a person moving from a first node of a network to a second
node of the network, including determining a statistical number of times the
person has moved from the first node to the second node. Campagna
correspondingly identifies Si as a state identifying a worker I being located
at a sensor location L (see Campagna, 8:11–21, 8:56–9:12), and discloses
computation of “basic probabilities” such that “aij = # times Sj occurs
directly after Si / # of times Si occurs” (id. at 9:13–15). See Ans. 13.
Campagna further discloses computing “the probabilities for certain pre-
selected state sequences W, given observation sequence O” (Campagna,
11:40–41) as well as a most likely sequence W* which maximizes such
probabilities (id. at 11:54–12:3) in order to update initial estimates aij based
on observations O. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s finding that Campagna
discloses the particular statistical processing operations recited in step [C] of
claim 1.
Appellants also object to the Examiner’s reliance on Campagna
because it is directed to calculating location probabilities in an office
environment, not “based upon mining tasks.” App. Br. 12. We, however,
agree with the Examiner that Campagna and Moshier are analogous art
because both are directed to position estimation in an RFID network (see
Ans. 13), regardless of whether Campagna relates to RFID tracking in an
office environment and Moshier relates to RFID tracking in a mining
environment.
Appellants further object to Campagna as failing to estimate a position
between nodes based upon tasks of the mineworker and condition of the
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

7
mine. See Reply Br. 5. This contention is unpersuasive, however, because
we have rejected the claim construction upon which it rests. As recited in
claim 1, it is sufficient that both Campagna and Moshier rely upon the
personal information of an office worker or mineworker to estimate the
worker’s location.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain over Appellants’ objections the
Examiner’s findings as to the Campagna disclosure and claim 1.
Patel Disclosure
The Examiner cites Patel as disclosing the subject matter recited in
step [D] of “displaying to a rescue force” the optimal moving route. See
Ans. 7, 9–10.
Appellants contend Patel does not disclose an optimal moving route
“for the mineworker” as recited in step [D] of claim 1, but rather discloses
an optimal moving route for an emergency responder such as a firefighter.
See App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. Appellants similarly contend Patel does not
disclose displaying an optimal moving route “to a rescue force” in a mine as
recited in step [D] of claim 1, but rather discloses displaying the route to
“the emergency responder and/or response coordinator” at an emergency
scene. See App. Br. 10 (quoting Patel, 7:46–48); Reply Br. 2. Appellants
are factually correct in these regards.
Nonetheless, the Examiner rejected claim 1 as being obvious under
§ 103, not anticipated under § 102. We agree with the Examiner that
Moshier and Patel are analogous art because both disclose calculating an
optimal route out of a dangerous situation (see Ans. 9), and we further add
that both do so by tracking RFID sensors attached to the person who needs
an escape route. See, e.g., Patel, 4:4–24, 5:25–38. We are not persuaded by
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

8
Appellants’ suggestion that there is some sort of difference between the
respective environments of these references that one of ordinary skill would
not apply the teachings of Patel to Moshier. See, e.g., Reply Br. 2. Indeed,
while the claimed invention is directed to mineworkers in an underground
mine, the Specification suggests the disclosed methods and systems are
“applicable to any other suitable circumstances, where forecasting of a
moving direction of an object in a network is required.” Spec., ¶ 0013.
Appellants further object to Patel as failing to disclose creating an
optimal moving route from an estimated location as recited in claim 1,
because Patel works with “definitive positioning data.” App. Br. 10.
However, the Examiner’s rejection relies on Moshier as creating the route
from an estimated location, and cites Patel only for its disclosure of
displaying an optimal moving route. See Ans. 6–7, 10. Thus, Appellants’
objection is inapposite to the rejection.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain over Appellants’ objections the
Examiner’s findings as to the Patel disclosure and claim 1.
Combination of Moshier, Campagna, and Patel
Appellants contend none of the three cited references relies upon one
or more conditions of the mine network, or the properties of the mining tasks
of the mineworker, to estimate the mineworker’s location. See App. Br. 12–
13; Reply Br. 6. This contention is unpersuasive, because we have rejected
the claim construction upon which it rests. As recited in claim 1, it is
sufficient that Moshier relies upon the personal information of the
mineworker to estimate the mineworker’s location.
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

9
Prima Facie Case of Obviousness
Appellants contend the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness, “because none of the references including Moshier,
Campagna and Patel et al. recognize the problem solved by the claimed
invention.” App. Br. 13–16. Appellants describe that problem as
“estimating a probable location based upon mining tasks of a mineworker
and plotting a moving route to a nearest exit based upon that probable
location.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded, for two
reasons. First, we have rejected Appellants’ claim construction which would
require the mineworker’s location to be estimated based upon mining tasks
of the mineworker. Second, the obviousness analysis is not limited to the
problem which motivated the applicant, but rather may encompass “any
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the [claimed invention].” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420 (2007). We conclude the Examiner’s stated reasons for
combining the three prior art references in this case are supported by the
evidence of record and are persuasive reasons to combine. See Ans. 6–7
(“As Moshier’s location estimation using stored historical data must be
implemented somehow, it would have been obvious to use Campagna’s
method because it could be done with no new or unexpected results”), 7
(obvious to use Patel’s display of an escape route “in order to facilitate
rescue operations”).
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–17 as unpatentable over Moshier,
Campagna, and Patel are each sustained.
Appeal 2012-002131
Application 11/956,052

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

hh