KNAPP SYSTEMINTEGRATION GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 12, 2021

2021003526 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021)

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.
14/155,804 01/15/2014 Peter STELZER P43395 9701
7055 7590 10/12/2021
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
MUTSCHLER, JOSEPH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2021 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER STELZER, JOSEF DAX,
and MANFRED GRABLECHNER
__________________

Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–10, 12, 16–20, and 23, which are all the
pending claims.2 Non-Final Act. 2; Appeal Br. 1. A hearing was conducted
on September 30, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies KNAPP SYSTEMINTEGRATION GmbH as the real party in
interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 11, 13–15, 21, and 22 are withdrawn. See Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for the visual technical support of
manual order-picking processes through a device with a mobile
unit having an optical sensing detection device, an optical
display device, a data processing device and a data interface for
wireless connection to a stationary electronic data-processing
system, wherein the stationary data-processing system includes
product management software and a connection device for the
mobile unit, the method comprising:
transmitting an order comprising an assigned list of
goods from the data-processing system to the mobile unit;
cyclically receiving navigation data, which is transmitted
in the form of directions, on the optical display device of the
mobile unit,
wherein the navigation data for the mobile unit is based
on a comparison of data from the optical sensing detection
device of the mobile unit with:
reference data or model data stored in the data-
processing system or in the mobile unit; and
a position of a current target object of the assigned
list of goods of the mobile unit; and
not transmitting navigation information for a next object
of the assigned list of goods of the specific mobile device until:
the current target object or a placeholder
replacement object for the current target object is
detected by the optical sensing detection device of the
mobile device;
the data processing device identifies the detected
current target object or placeholder replacement object
for the current target object; and
the movement of the detected current target object
or placeholder replacement object for the current target
object from a storage location to a target location is
detected and logged.
Appeal Br. 46–47 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5–10, 12, 17–20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bravo,3 Schonlau,4 Schon,5 and Dempski.6
Claims 2–4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bravo, Schonlau, Schon, Dempski, and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5–10, 12, 17–20, and 23
Rejected Over Bravo, Schonlau, Schon, and Dempski
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bravo teaches a method of
visual technical support for manual order-picking with a mobile unit (mobile
display device 170) with an optical sensing detection device (MEMS sensor
208 as camera in communications module 198), optical display (lenses 180,
182), data processing device (microcontroller 188, 204), and data interface
(communication circuit 202). Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that
Bravo transmits assigned directions to objects to mobile unit 170, cyclically
receives navigation data, and updates directions by displaying indicia onto
lenses 180, 182, where the navigation data is based on a comparison of data
received from the mobile unit to reference or model data stored in the data
processing system 102 (digital model 110 in memory 108) and a position of
a current target object of the assigned list of goods. Id. at 4–6.
The Examiner cites Schon for transmitting an order of an assigned list
of goods to a mobile unit and not sending new navigation instructions for the
next item until the current item is detected and logged. Id. at 6–7.

3 US 2009/0182499 A1, published July 16, 2009.
4 US 2004/0164926 A1, published August 26, 2004.
5 US 2005/0071234 A1, published March 31, 2005.
6 US 2004/0183751 A1, published September 23, 2004.
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

4
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious “to include the
teachings of Schon in the system and methods disclosed by Bravo in order to
pick objects from orders more efficiently and reduce errors when fulfilling
orders.” Id. at 7.
The Examiner cites Dempski for using data from an optical sensing
detection device of the mobile unit (wearable eyeglasses with a camera) to
detect objects and compare them with stored geographical arrangements of
facilities and optical markers in order to determine a current location of the
wearable device. Non-Final Act. 7–8.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to include the
teachings of Dempski in Bravo “in order to use a cost effective method of
location and object tracking” and the claimed invention is a combination of
old elements with each element performing the function it does separately
where the results of the combination were predictable. Id. at 8.
The Examiner does not provide findings for Schonlau. Id. at 4–8.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not identified any teaching
in the prior art or knowledge of a skilled artisan that support the proposed
modification of Bravo’s optical display device based on the radio frequency
identification (RFID) scanning system of Schon. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant
asserts that the manner in which the location information of the user and the
item and the way that directions to the item are provided are wholly distinct
between the optical display of Bravo and the RFID scanning of Schon. Id.
Appellant argues that Bravo’s system responds to a shopper’s inquiry about
finding an item whereas Schon’s system loads pallets with preselected items
using RFID technology. Id. We agree.
Figures 4 and 5 of Bravo are reproduced below.
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

5

Figure 4 above illustrates mobile display device 170 with microphone
184 that receives commands to locate an item. Bravo ¶ 53. Orientation of
mobile display device 170 is determined by polling sensor module 186. Id.
¶ 52. Directions to the item are projected onto lenses 180, 182 by projectors
178 in Figure 5 above. Id. ¶ 35. Communication module 198 uses MEMS
sensor 208 as a camera to track a shopper’s eye movements as an interface.
Id. ¶ 39. Mobile display device 170 transmits signals to radio frequency
(RF) store transmitters 144, 146,148, 150 so its location can be determined
by triangulation using times when the signals are received. Id. ¶ 50.
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

6
Figure 14 of Bravo is reproduced below to illustrate Bravo’s location
and direction system.

Figure 14 above illustrates a store viewed through lenses 180, 182 of
mobile display device 170 with indicia 300 showing the shopper the route to
dog biscuits. Bravo ¶ 58. Indicia 302 with an informational message 304
(“dog biscuits”) is projected onto lenses 180, 192 to identify the located
product in response to the shopper’s voice command “show dog biscuits.”
Id. ¶¶ 58, 59.
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

7
In contrast to Bravo’s mobile display device 170, Schon teaches a
warehouse picker system in which orders for items are sent to pallets that are
moved through the warehouse by forklifts. A user interface on the forklift
displays the picklist. Schon ¶¶ 60–62, Fig. 4. Schon uses RFID technology
to detect when an item is placed on the pallet. The pallet and forklift read
the item’s RFID using their RF readers. Id. ¶ 75. Once the correct item is
on the pallet, the system deducts the item from the picklist, updates the
status of the pallet on the display, and provides directions to the next item on
the picklist. Id. ¶¶ 76–78, Fig. 5 (511, 514, 515); see Non-Final Act. 7.
The Examiner has not explained with sufficient technical reasoning or
factual underpinnings why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
include the teachings of Schon in the system and methods of Bravo “in order
to pick objects from orders more efficiently and reduce errors when fulfilling
orders.” Non-Final Act. 7. Bravo does not provide a picklist of items for a
shopper to find in a store. Instead, the shopper identifies an item for the
system to locate. Bravo ¶ 53. Even if a shopper seeks a list of items, the
shopper provides the list to the system, and the system determines the best
route through the store. Id. ¶ 59. It is not clear why a skilled artisan would
modify Bravo with Schon’s picklist system when Bravo already provides
directions to a list of items that minimize the time required to obtain all of
the items. Id. Nor is it clear why a skilled artisan would be motivated to use
Schon’s teaching to not transmit navigation information to a next item on a
list until a current target item is detected when Schon implements this
feature using RFID technology on a pallet and forklift whereas Bravo locates
items in a store with messages 304 and indicia 300 as discussed above. The
shopper in Bravo is not required to carry an RFID reader to identify items.
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

8
Nor is it clear why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use
Dempski’s optical sensing device to determine a shopper’s location in Bravo
when Bravo already uses RF triangulation to do so as discussed above. We
are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so
based on Bravo’s use of a camera built into the mobile device 170 because
Bravo’s camera is used to read the shopper’s eye movements and act as an
interface so the shopper can interface with the device using voice commands
and eye movements. Bravo ¶ 39. Bravo’s mobile device 170 uses RF
triangulation to locate and direct a shopper rather than digital images of the
store captured by a digital camera on the mobile device as discussed. Thus,
we are not persuaded that Bravo’s camera provides a reason to combine
Dempski’s camera with Bravo’s mobile device to locate and track objects.
See Ans. 10–11; Non-Final Act. 8; Reply Br. 7, 13–14; Appeal Br. 20–23.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims 5
and 23, which depend from claim 1.
Claims 6–10, 12, and 17–20
Claim 6 recites a device for carrying out visual technical support of
manual picking processes of an order by using a mobile unit with an optical
sensing detection device that detects a geographic arrangement of optical
conditions to determine its position and orientation using image analysis.
Appeal Br. 48 (Claim 6). The Examiner relies on Bravo to teach an optical
display device, Schon to teach a picklist transmitted to a mobile unit (pallet)
and a display of each item’s location, and Dempski to teach a mobile device
with an optical sensing detection device that detects optical markers of a
shape, color, and pattern in order to detect the position and orientation of the
device as claimed. Non-Final Act. 9–11.
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

9
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to include
Schon’s teachings in Bravo “to pick objects from orders more efficiently”
and to include Dempski’s teachings in Bravo “to use a cost effective method
of location and object tracking.” Id. at 7, 8.
We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated
to use Schon’s teachings of a pallet and forklift system with RFID readers
“to pick objects from orders more efficiently” in Bravo. See Appeal Br. 32–
34. As discussed for claim 1, Bravo receives orders from a shopper and uses
RF triangulation and images 300, 302, 304 projected on the device lenses
180, 182 to direct the shopper through the store to the item. Bravo ¶¶ 50, 59,
60. It is not clear how using Schon’s RFID readers to recognize items
placed on a pallet would allow Bravo’s system “to pick objects from orders
more efficiently.” Nor are we persuaded that Bravo’s user interface camera
that is used to read a shopper’s eye movements provides a reason to combine
Dempski’s optical sensing detection device that detects objects and images
to locate a worker’s position in Bravo, which locates a shopper through RF
triangulation. See Ans. 17; Dempski ¶¶ 25–27; Bravo ¶¶ 39, 50. The
Examiner’s determination lacks a rational underpinning. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 or claims 7–10, 12, and 17–20, which
depend from claim 6.
Claims 2–4 and 16
Rejected Over Bravo, Schonlau, Schon, Dempski, and Official Notice
The Examiner’s findings and reasoning for the rejection of claims 2–4
and 16 do not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of Bravo, Schon, and
Dempski as to claim 1 from which claims 2–4 and 16 depend. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of these claims.
Appeal 2021-003526
Application 14/155,804

10
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–10, 12,
17–20, 23
103(a) Bravo, Schonlau,
Schon, Dempski
1, 5–10, 12,
17–20, 23
2–4, 16 103(a) Bravo, Schonlau,
Schon, Dempski,
Official Notice
2–4, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12, 16–
20, 23

REVERSED