SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2019004930 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020)

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.
15/139,420 04/27/2016 RUSSELL E. CALVARESE 151306US01 1795
126568 7590 12/17/2020
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
EXAMINER
LIM, STEVEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2020 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUSSELL E. CALVARESE, RICHARD J. LAVERY,
and CHARLES LAURIA

____________

Appeal 2019-004930
Application 15/139,420
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–20, which are all the
claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Symbol
Technologies, LLC, a wholly indirectly owned company of Zebra
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 3 and 13 have been canceled.
Appeal 2019-004930
Application 15/139,420

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “an arrangement for, and a
method of, accurately locating, and reducing average electrical power
consumption of, an electrically-powered, mobile device, such as a portable
data capture device, when at rest in a venue, such as a retail store.” See
Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. An arrangement for accurately locating, and for
reducing average electrical power consumption of, an
electrically-powered, mobile device at rest in a venue, the
arrangement comprising:
a sensing system for generating location signals
indicative of where the mobile device is in the venue, wherein
the sensing system includes a locationing system deployed in
the venue; and
a control system operatively connected to the sensing
system for determining that the mobile device is at rest when
the location signals are substantially the same for a
predetermined period of time, for processing the location
signals to determine an accurate, current location of the mobile
device in the venue when the mobile device is determined to be
at rest, and for controlling the mobile device when determined
to be at rest to operate in a low power mode in which the
average electrical power consumption of the mobile device is
reduced.
Supplemental Appeal Br. 2 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mahany (US 5,949,776; iss. Sept. 7, 1999) and
Mantovani (US 7,633,389 B2; iss. Dec. 15, 2009). Final Act. 3–11.

Appeal 2019-004930
Application 15/139,420

3
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner relies on Mahany as disclosing
the recited “sensing system for generating location signals indicative of
where the mobile device is in the venue” and on Mantovani as disclosing the
sensing system that determines the location of the mobile device has not
changed for a period of time and switching the device to a low power mode.
Final Act. 4–5 (citing Mahany Fig. 1a; Mantovani Figs. 1–6).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Mahany discloses
the recited sensing system for locating the mobile device in a venue because
Nothing in Fig. 1a would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
interpret a presence of a sensing system for generating location
signals indicative of where the mobile device is in the venue.
Instead, as expressly described in Mahany 9:33–10:26, Fig. la
merely discloses a local area network (LAN) “for maintaining
typical communication flow within the building premises.”
There is nothing Mahany to indicate, and the OA does not point
to any indication, that typical communication flow includes
location signals indicative of where the mobile device is in the
venue. As such, Applicants respectfully submit that Mahany
fails to teach or suggest at least this feature.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that the discussion of “roaming computing
devices” and “low power mode” in Mahany is not related to reducing the
power consumption based on locating a mobile device, and instead refers to
high/low power communication with the mobile device. Appeal Br. 7
(citing Mahany 11:33–48). Additionally, Appellant argues that the
Examiner has erroneously concluded that the missing disclosure related to
the recited “control system operatively connected to the sensing system for
controlling the mobile device when determined to be at rest to operate in a
low power mode” is taught or suggested by Mantovani. Appeal Br. 8.
According to Appellant, Mantovani’s Abstract merely discloses
Appeal 2019-004930
Application 15/139,420

4
“determining whether position information has been requested from the
device position determinator (130); and if not so, automatically switching
the device position determinator (130) to a low power consumption mode,”
which is not the same as the claimed feature that “the control system acts
based on a determination of the mobile device being at rest.” Id.
In response, the Examiner explains “[t]he venue is not further limited
as to being a specific building, walled-structure, etc., could be considered a
place where the arrangement operates” and “[t]here is no limitation
describing the venue being a physical part of the same system as the
arrangement or that the arrangement must include the venue as a physical
limiting structure.” Ans. 3. The Examiner further points to Mahany’s
disclosure of a hierarchical communication system within a local area
network (LAN) in Figure 1a, and the related text in column 11, lines 10–28,
and equates the recited venue to a system “being capable of communicating
wirelessly within data stations located within a venue.” Ans. 3–4. With
respect to the recited locationing systems, the Examiner asserts that such
systems “are well-known in the art, such as GPS systems” which in
combination with the venue structure or the building of Mahany meet the
recited limitation. Ans. 4. With respect to Mantovani, the Examiner
reiterates the previous findings that the reference teaches “a low power mode
activated by a rest period of the mobile device,” which would provide the
low power mode in the structure taught by Mahany. Id.
Based on our review of Mahany, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions that the disclosed LAN and the related coverage area disclosed
in Mahany are not the same as the recited “a sensing system for generating
location signals indicative of where the mobile device is in the venue,
Appeal 2019-004930
Application 15/139,420

5
wherein the sensing system includes a locationing system deployed in the
venue.” Mahany discloses a hierarchical communication system with
wireless local area networks (LANs) that communicate with mobile devices
through selected frequency bands and power levels. Mahany Abstract. Any
power modification in Mahany relates to the power used for wirelessly
communicating with the mobile devices covered by the LAN. See Mahany
4:65–67, 11: 33–47. That is, the Examiner has not identified, nor do we
find, any disclosure in Mahany related to devices deployed in a venue for
determining the location of the mobile devices in the venue. Furthermore,
the Examiner has not established that the low power mode disclosed by
Mahany is determined based on the sensing system in the venue identifying
the location of the mobile devices.
Similarly, Mantovani discloses that the energy constrained device
saves battery consumption based on eliminating position information
updates, which consume large amounts of battery power, if the mobile
device has not moved over a period of time. See Mantovani 2:38–54.
Additionally, the device position determinator 130 in Mantovani is disclosed
as a part of the mobile device, rather than a sensing system within a venue,
as claimed.
Conclusion
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s position with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and independent
claim 11, which recite similar limitations. We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 11, as well as claims 2, 4–10, 12, and 14–20,
dependent therefrom.
Appeal 2019-004930
Application 15/139,420

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–
12, 14–20
103 Mahany, Mantovani 1, 2, 4–12,
14–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–12,
14–20

REVERSED