Ex Parte Bassan-Eskenazi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 2018

14085854 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/085,854 69054 7590 RECHES PA TENTS 211 North Union St. Suite 100 FILING DATE 11/21/2013 08/01/2018 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Amir Bassan-Eskenazi 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 8362-US4 6959 EXAMINER EUSTAQUIO, CAL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2018 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): OREN@I-P.CO.IL RECHES0@012.NET.IL MAIL@I-P.CO.IL PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMIR BAS SAN-ESKENAZI, NAFT ALY SHARIR, and OFER FRIEDMAN Appeal2018-001092 1 Application 14/085,854 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI,Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN,Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a fmal rejection of claims 1-19. 2 Wehavejurisdiction under35U.S.C. Â§6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Pixie technologies Ltd. See App. Br. 3. 2 Claim 20 is pending but not subject to any rejection. See App. Br. 3; Final Act. 2-17. Appeal 2018-001092 Application 14/085,854 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to "various methods, systems, wireless tags, wireless readers, and non-transitory computerized media," including "a method for locating a user within an indoor space." Spec. ,r,r 4, 91. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference ( emphasis added): 1. A method for locating a user within an indoor space, the method comprises: receiving by a computer, distance information about distances between multiple wireless tags that are positioned within the indoor space; wherein the distance information is obtained by the multiple wireless tags during a first type of distance estimation process that comprises wirelessly transmitting messages between the multiple wireless tags; determining locations of the wireless tags in the indoor space in response to the distance information and to calibration information indicative of an actual or estimated location of at least one wireless tag in the indoor space; receiving, from a user device, user device location information related to a location of the user device in relation to a sub-set of the wireless tags; and determining a location of the user device within the indoor space in response to the user device location information and to locations of the wireless tags of the sub-set of wireless tags in the indoor space. Amended Claims Appendix 2, filed March 26, 2017. 2 Appeal 2018-001092 Application 14/085,854 References and Rejecti ons3 The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Reynolds Geissler Wild Roesner Norair Maia US 2007 /0040687 Al Feb. 22, 2007 US 2008/0100423 Al May 1, 2008 US 2009/0212921 Al Aug. 27, 2009 US 2010/0289623 Al Nov. 18, 2010 US 2011/0074552 Al Mar. 31, 2011 US 2012/0235812 Al Sept. 20, 2012 Claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wild and Reynolds. Final Act. 2. Claims 7, 16, and 19 standrejectedunder35U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)as being unpatentable over Wild, Reynolds, and Maia. Final Act. 11. Claims 6 and 15 standrejectedunder35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)as being unpatentable over Wild, Reynolds, Roesner, and Geissler. Final Act. 12. Claims 8 and 17 standrejectedunder35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)as being unpatentable over Wild, Reynolds, and Norair. Final Act. 13. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Wild for the limitation "wherein the distance information is obtained by the multiple wireless tags during a frrst type of distance estimation process that comprises wirelessly transmitting messages between the multiple wireless tags." Final Act. 3. Particularly, the Examiner fmds Wild teaches "reader 110 obtains locations 3 We note the Examiner lists dependent claim 20 as rejected on the front page of the office action; however, claim 20 is not further discussed in the office action. See Final Act. 1-17. Accordingly we treat claim 20 as not subject to a pending rejection. See 3 7 CFR 41. 31 ( c ). 3 Appeal 2018-001092 Application 14/085,854 of the marker tags 120 and uses the location module 170 to capture the locations ofthosemarkertags." Final Act. 3 (citing Wild ,r,r 25-27). Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in error, because "Wild fails to teach or suggest that the marker tags exchange information and especially fails to teach or suggest that the marker tags generate distance information by exchanging messages between the marker tags." Br. 11. Instead, Appellants assert "Wild teaches that the READER communicates with the marker tags and the asset tags (paragraphs [0020] - [0028]) AND NOT bywirelessly transmitting messages between the multiple wireless tags." Br. 13. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. Claim 1 recites, inter ali a, "transmitting messages between the multiple wireless tags" ( emphasis added). Based on our review of Wild, we find no factual basis to support the Examiner's determination that "[i]n Wild, communications are made between tags 120, 140 and reader 701 using triangulation techniques." Ans. 5; see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis."). That is, in contrast with the claim requirements, Wild discloses messages are sent from tags to the reader, rather than between tags. See Wild ,r 25 ("The marker tags 120 and asset tags 140 communicate with the reader 110.") (emphasis added); see also Wild Figs. 1, 7, ,r 70. In the Answer, the Examiner further determines "[i]t does not matter if the distance information is taken between two tags and sent to a processing unit" as claimed, "or if the processing unit obtains the location information from the tags in order to determine the location of a particular tagged item (as is in the case of the Wild reference),"because"each 4 Appeal 2018-001092 Application 14/085,854 respective concept of determining the location of a particular tag [] ultimately uses the same principle." Ans. 5---6. We find the Examiner errs. "The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCP A 1970). Here, the Examiner has not considered all claim limitations, specifically the transmitting of messages "between the multiple wireless tags." Thus, the Examiner has not established that Wild teaches or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1. Wild does not teach or suggest "between the multiple wireless tags," as claimed. The Examiner, furthermore, does not rely on the other references for the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 4. As such, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in fmding the cited references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, and the limitations similarly recited by independent claims 10 and 19. We do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of these claims, or the claims dependent thereon. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19 is reversed. REVERSED 5