Ex Parte BELLOWS

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 7, 2019

14064119 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/064,119 10/26/2013 David E. BELLOWS 126568 7590 02/11/2019 Zebra Technologies Corporation 3 Overlook Point Lincolnshire, IL 60069 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. 102390us01 1098 EXAMINER FOXX, CHICO A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2019 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 DAVID E. BELLOWS Appeal2018-006539 Application 14/064, 119 Technology Center 2600 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17, constituting all claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2018-006539 Application 14/064, 119 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to "an apparatus and method for balancing the number of RFID reads to produce an appropriate quantity of data." Spec. ,r 6. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: configuring, by a Radio Frequency ID (RFID) reader, each of a plurality of antennas operating in the RFID reader to operate in one of a first state and a second state opposite the first state; configuring, by the RFID reader, each of the plurality of antennas to alternate between operating ( 1) in a first session and in one of the first and second states and (2) in a second session and in the other of the first and second states; and configuring, by the RFID reader, a first antenna to operate in the first state during the first session, and to operate in the second state during the second session, and a second antenna adjacent to the first antenna to operate in the first state during the second session and in the second state during the first session; wherein during operation each of the plurality of antennas is configured to read an RFID tag within a range of the antenna when a state of the RFID tag for the session in which the antenna is configured to operate matches the state in which the antenna is configured to operate during the session and to switch the state of the RFID tag to the opposite state for the session in which the antenna is configured to operate. REJECTION Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilkinson (US 2014/0266617 Al, published Sep. 28, 2014) and Kim (US 2010/0245054 Al, published Sep. 30, 2010). Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal2018-006539 Application 14/064, 119 ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Wilkinson and Kim teaches or suggests "a first antenna" and "a second antenna adjacent to the first antenna," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 11? The Examiner relies on the combination of Wilkinson and Kim to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3--4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Wilkinson teaches a group of readers (readers 203 and 204) that read particular areas that are adjacent to each other. Final Act. 4 (citing Wilkinson Fig. 5, ,r,r 30, 32, 36); Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds Kim teaches a reader device that controls the operation of adjacent antennas. Final Act. 5 ( citing Kim Fig. 1 ); Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Wilkinson's multiple readers into a single reader as in Kim "to minimize the amount of RFID reader[ s] needed to perform the monitoring, thus providing a financial savings for hardware expense." Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. Appellant contends Wilkinson groups separate RFID tag readers 203 and 204, but readers 203 and 204 are not adjacent to one another. App. Br. 6. Appellant contends the broadest reasonable interpretation, incorporating the plain and ordinary meaning, of "adjacent" requires that "two antennas that are adjacent to each other would not be divided by a wall, be placed in separate groupings of antennas, or be detached/disconnected." App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 2, 4. Appellant argues Wilkinson's groups of readers 203 and 204 are separated by physical barriers and therefore are not adjacent. App. Br. 6-7. 3 Appeal2018-006539 Application 14/064, 119 We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's arguments. Appellant's argument against Wilkinson alone does not rebut the combination made by the Examiner under Wilkinson and Kim. 1 One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). We agree with the Examiner's finding that Wilkinson teaches a group of readers (readers 203 and 204) that read particular areas that are adjacent to each other. Ans. 3; see Wilkinson Fig. 5. Appellant identifies the claimed "adjacent" is "an adjective that describes something that is next to or adjoining something else." App. Br. 7. Wilkinson discloses readers located in "a first area 501" and "a second area 502" with a "wall 503" that "separate[ s] these two areas 501 and 502 with at least one door 504 serving to provide a pathway from one area to the other by authorized associates." Wilkinson ,r 29. In other words, Wilkinson teaches readers located in areas that are adjoined through door 504. Appellant has not provided persuasive argument that the claimed "adjacent" antennas, including antennas in 1 Appellant argues the Examiner's findings pertaining to Kim and the combination of Wilkinson and Kim constitute a new ground of rejection. Reply Br. 3--4. We disagree. See Final Act. 5. Moreover, if Appellant believes the Examiner's Answer contained a new ground of rejection not identified as such, Appellant should have filed a petition under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.181 within two months from the mailing of the Examiner's Answer requesting that the ground of rejection set forth in the answer be designated as a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.40(a). Any allegation that an Examiner's Answer contains a new ground of rejection not identified as such is waived if not timely raised (i.e., by filing the petition within two months of the answer) by way of a petition. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.18 l(f). 4 Appeal2018-006539 Application 14/064, 119 adjoining spaces, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Wilkinson's readers in adjoining spaces. We further agree with the Examiner that Kim teaches a reader device that controls the operation of adjacent antennas. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Kim teaches a reader being connected to adjacent antennas similar to the claimed adjacent areas. Ans. 3 ( citing Kim Fig. 1, Spec. Figs. 1, 2, 5). For example, Kim discloses "master RFID/USN device 100 divides a coverage area thereof and comprises a plurality of antennas," such as four antennas, and the "first to fourth antennas 101 to 104 cover first to fourth quadrants of the coverage area." Kim ,r,r 48--49; see Kim Fig. 1. In other words, Kim teaches a reader device with antennas that are adjacent (located in four quadrants, where quadrant 101 is adjacent to quadrants 102 and 104, quadrant 102 is adjacent to quadrants 101 and 103, quadrant 103 is adjacent to quadrants 102 and 104, and quadrant 104 is adjacent to quadrants 102 and 101). Additionally, we find that the Examiner has articulated how the claimed features are met by the proposed combination of Wilkinson and Kim with some rational underpinning consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Appellant does not persuasively address the Examiner's findings regarding the combination of Wilkinson with Kim's single reader with adjacent antennas. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Wilkinson and Kim teaches "a first antenna" and "a second antenna adjacent to the first antennas," as required by claim 1. For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. For the same reasons, we sustain 5 Appeal2018-006539 Application 14/064, 119 the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17, not argued separately. See App. Br. 8. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-17 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6