High, Donald R. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

15061688 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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.
15/061,688 03/04/2016 Donald R. High 8842-136124-US_741US02 4101
122573 7590 12/02/2019
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP/Walmart Apollo
120 South LaSalle Street
Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, KELLY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte DONALD R. HIGH, MICHAEL D. ATCHLEY,
and DAVID C. WINKLE
____________________

Appeal 2019-001766
Application 15/061,688
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-001766
Application 15/061,688

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Final Act. 5–16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A shopping facility assistance system comprising:
a plurality of motorized transport units located in and
configured to move through a retail shopping facility;
a plurality of user interface units, each corresponding to a
respective motorized transport unit; and
a central computer system having a network interface such
that the central computer system wirelessly communicates with
the plurality of user interface units, wherein the central computer
system is configured to control movement of the plurality of
motorized transport units through the retail shopping facility, and
wherein the central computer system is further configured to:
- receive a voice input from a user via a particular one
of the user interface units that is associated with a particular one
of the motorized transport units;

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Walmart,
Inc., and Walmart Appollo, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001766
Application 15/061,688

3
- determine, using voice recognition, that the voice
input comprises, at least in part, an inquiry regarding product
pricing;
- providing a voiced output via the particular one of
the user interface units that is responsive to the inquiry.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–9, 11, and 13–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Martins and McAllister.2 Final Act. 5–14.
II. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Martins, McAllister, and Lin.3 Final Act. 14–15.
III. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Martins,
McAllister, and Kaye, III.4 Final Act. 15–16.

ANALYSIS
The dispositve issue in this case relates to the requirement of
independent claims 1 and 13 that the same central computer system
controls movement of a plurality of motorized transport units, and also
receives, recognizes, and responds to verbal inquiries.

2 Martins (US 2004/0093650 A1; pub. May 13, 2004) and McAllister (US
9,747,480 B2; iss. Aug. 29, 2017).
3 Lin (US 8,239,276 B2; iss. Aug. 7, 2012).
4 Kaye, III (US 9,495,703 B1; iss. Nov. 15, 2016).
Appeal 2019-001766
Application 15/061,688

4
The Examiner relies on Martins to teach the use of a central computer
system to control the movement of a plurality of robots. Final Act. 5, 6;
Ans. 6.
Martins describes a mobile robot system including at least one mobile
robot having an interface unit for receiving task commands. Martins ¶31;
Appeal Br. 9. The robot may respond to spoken commands. Martins ¶19;
Appeal Br. 9. Nevertheless, as Appellant correctly points out, “Martins’
robot handles that voice input locally and does not rely upon [a] central
computer system to interpret or otherwise process that voice input.” Appeal
Br. 9.
The Examiner relies on McAllister, rather than Martins, to teach
voice-based activities. Ans. 6.
McAllister describes a wheeled robot comprising a controller in the
form of an iPAD tablet computer. McAllister 38:21–31, 46–47 (claim 5). A
shopper may use a mobile telephone to ask verbal questions of a mobile
computer, that is, the controller, incorporated into the robot. McAllister,
14:66–15:32; 29:10–14. More specifically:
shopper 219 using WiFi calls for assistance from a robot and
robot 210 arrives at her location to provide assistance. Once
robot 210 arrives, a Bluetooth connection is preferably
established to offload the WiFi network and to provide a
dedicated and responsive interaction between iPad 197 and
consumer device [e.g., a mobile smart phone] 12.
McAllister 32:37–46. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have had reason, in view of the teachings of McAllister, to modify
Appeal 2019-001766
Application 15/061,688

5
Martins’ robot system to receive a voice input from a user; to determine,
using voice recognition, that the voice input comprises, at least in part, an
inquiry regarding product pricing; and to provide a voiced output responsive
to the inquiry. That reason would have been “to improve the communication
between the robot and user.” Final Act. 6–7.
Martins teaches controlling movement of one or more robots by
means of commands received through a wireless communication interface.
Martins ¶31. McAllister teaches offloading a robot’s mobile computer from
a wireless network and responding to inquiries through a direct connection
between the mobile computer and a mobile telephone. McAllister 32:37–46.
Therefore, despite the Examiner’s finding that McAllister’s mobile
computers are “central computer systems” within the meaning of the term as
used in claims 1 and 13 (Final Act. 5, 6; Ans. 5), we agree with Appellant
that the combined teachings of Martins and McAllister would not have
suggested combining the functions of controlling movement of a plurality of
motorized transport units; and of receiving, recognizing, and responding to
verbal inquiries, in the same central computer system. Appeal Br. 11. In
particular, the Examiner has not adequately explained why a desire to
improve the communication between the robot and user would have
suggested combining these functions into a single central computer system.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–9, 11, and 13–
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Martins and McAllister. Furthermore, the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the teachings of Lin, as applied
Appeal 2019-001766
Application 15/061,688

6
to claims 10 and 20, and of Kaye, III, as applied to claim 12, remedy the
deficiencies in the combined teachings of Martins and McAllister as applied
to independent claims 1 and 13. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10
and 20 under § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Martins,
McAllister, and Lin; or the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Martins, McAllister, and Kaye,
III.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11, 13–19 103 Martins,
McAllister
1–9, 11,
13–19
10, 20 103 Martins,
McAllister, Lin
10, 20
12 103 Martins,
McAllister, Kaye
12
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED