Ex Parte Branch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2017

13944747 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017)

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.
13/944,747 07/17/2013 Clinton A. Branch 1007.00117 8794
97510 7590 11/24/2017
The Law Office of James Baudino, PLLC
2313 ROOSEVELT DRIVE
SUITE A
ARLINGTON, TX 76016
EXAMINER
CHEN, XUEMEI G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2017 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 CLINTON A. BRANCH, ANGELA K. KERR,
and KEVIN M. KOHLERITER
____________

Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THU A. DANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1–20, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ShockWatch, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to visual
indicator status recognition. Abstract. The Specification explains that “a
system for visual indicator status recognition includes a processing unit and
a detection module executable by the processing unit to receive at least one
image of an event detection indicator and analyze the at least one image to
determine” identification and activation information. Spec. ¶ 3.2
Exemplary Claims
1. A visual indicator recognition system, comprising:
an imaging system configured to capture a first image of
a first optical data of an indicator, the imaging system
configured to verify indicator code indicia is derivable from the
first optical data, and
wherein, responsive to verifying that the indicator code
indicia is derivable from the first optical data, the imaging
system is configured to capture a second image of a second
optical data of the indicator; and
a detection module executable by a processing unit to
analyze the second optical data and derive status information of
the indicator.
7. A visual indicator recognition system, comprising:
a processing unit; and

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed July 17, 2013; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed March 4, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed August 8,
2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 19, 2016; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed February 17, 2017.
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

3
a detection module executable by the processing unit to:
receive at least one image of an event detection
indicator; and
analyze the at least one image to determine:
identification information of the indicator;
whether the indicator has been activated;
and
if activated, at least one characteristic of the
activation based on the identification of the
indicator.
App. Br. 21–22 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shniberg. Final Act. 3–8.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10–15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shniberg and Conzelmann. Final Act. 8–14.
Claims 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shniberg, Conzelmann, and Wilson. Final Act. 14–15.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1–20 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding Examiner error.
Wilson et al. (“Wilson”) US 7,243,007 B2 July 10, 2007
Shniberg et al. (“Shniberg”) US 7,262,792 B2 Aug. 28, 2007
Conzelmann US 8,757,503 B2 June 24, 2014
(filed Nov. 18, 2009)
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

4
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 3–15) and Answer (Ans. 3–19). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 4, and 6
CLAIM 1: “CAPTURE A FIRST IMAGE”
AND “CAPTURE A SECOND IMAGE”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
“Shniberg does not disclose capturing first and second images of an
indicator.” App. Br. 4 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 2–3. Appellants
contend that (1) “in Shniberg, the same image output appears to be analyzed
at different resolutions to obtain the different levels of information” and
(2) “the different resolution analyses in Shniberg are not different image
‘captures’ of an indicator.” App. Br. 5–6. Further, Appellants assert that
claim 1 differs from Shniberg because “[c]laim 1 explicitly recites ‘a first
image’ and ‘a second image’ are captured.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
we disagree with Appellants’ claim interpretation. Claim 1 requires
“captur[ing] a first image of a first optical data of an indicator” and
“captur[ing] a second image of a second optical data of the indicator.” App.
Br. 21 (Claims App.). In short, claim 1 encompasses capturing different
“optical data” from a single image of an indicator as well as capturing
separate images of an indicator. See Ans. 4–5. This interpretation comports
with the Specification’s explanation that different “optical data” of an
indicator may appear in different portions the indicator acquired from a
single image. See Spec. ¶¶ 38, 69, Figs. 4–8; see also Ans. 4–5. Similarly,
the Specification describes capturing separate images or just different
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

5
“optical data” of an indicator, i.e., “an initial image/optical data” and
“another image/optical data.” Spec. ¶¶ 67–68.
Shniberg teaches or suggests “captur[ing] a first image of a first
optical data of an indicator” and “captur[ing] a second image of a second
optical data of the indicator.” See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–7. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that “Shniberg gives examples of how to use images in
different resolutions to derive information from visually sensible indicators.”
Ans. 6. In particular, a “first resolution” acquires a “first level of
information,” e.g., container identification and content classification, and a
“second resolution” acquires an “additional level of information,” e.g.,
product weight. Ans. 6; see Shniberg 10:26–38. Shniberg Figure 9 shows a
first resolution capturing first optical data in an indicator corresponding to
the number “6278677777” and a second resolution capturing second optical
data in the indicator corresponding to the additional digits “64.” Shniberg
10:31–38, Fig. 9. Figure 10 illustrates a similar arrangement where a first
resolution captures first optical data, e.g., from liquid-crystal display 614 or
sensors 606, 608, 610, or 618, and a second resolution captures second
optical data, i.e., from sensor 616 located within liquid-crystal display 614.
Id. at 10:39–64, Fig. 10.
Referring to Shniberg Figures 8A and 8B, Appellants assert that
(1) “Shniberg appears to capture a single image of the indicator and then
analyzes that image to derive certain information” and (2) Figures 8A
and 8B do not depict “two different captured images of the indicator taken
by an image capturing device at two different times.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis
omitted). Those assertions disregard Shniberg’s disclosure that Figures 8A
and 8B illustrate an indicator embodied in a dynamic display, e.g., a liquid-
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

6
crystal display, that may (1) change over time to depict changing parameters
and (2) provide different resolutions over time to depict “indications of
different parameters.” Shniberg 4:61–64, 10:14–25; see Final Act. 7;
Ans. 5–7.
Further, Shniberg describes imaging an object bearing an indicator
using a “series of photographs.” Shniberg 7:3–7; see id. 5:47–49, 6:14–17.
The “series of photographs” may capture “indications of different
parameters.” See id. 10:14–25, 10:39–11:10, Figs. 8A–8B, Fig. 10 (sensors
606, 608, 610, 616, and 618). Although though claim 1 does not require
capturing separate images of an indicator, Shniberg teaches or suggests
capturing separate images of an indicator. See, e.g., Final Act. 4; Shniberg
5:47–49, 6:14–17, 7:3–7, 10:14–25, 10:39–11:10, Figs. 8A–8B, Fig. 10.
CLAIM 1: “CAPTURE A SECOND IMAGE” RESPONSIVE
TO “VERIFYING THAT THE INDICATOR CODE INDICIA
IS DERIVABLE FROM THE FIRST OPTICAL DATA”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
“Shniberg does not appear to disclose that the second resolution data is
dependent on the first resolution data.” App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. More
specifically, Appellants assert that (1) “Shniberg does not disclose that the
second resolution data is dependent upon first deriving the first resolution
data” and (2) “the second resolution data may be derivable even if the first
resolution data is not.” App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds, and we agree, that “a person with ordinary skill in the
art would have appreciated that the second optical data (second resolution
data) is captured upon verifying that the first optical data (first resolution
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

7
data) is at least derivable.” Ans. 9. Appellants do not address the
Examiner’s finding regarding a person with ordinary skill. Reply Br. 3–5.
Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Shniberg “disclose[s]
that the content of the second image is dependent upon the content of the
first image.” Ans. 8–9. In Figure 9, for example, the first-level information
comprising the number “6278677777” identifies a container and generally
classifies its contents as “Vegetable,” while the second-level information
comprising the additional digits “64” denotes the specific product “Broccoli”
and its weight “15 KG.” Shniberg 10:31–38, Fig. 9; see Ans. 8; see also
Final Act. 3–4. The second-level information “would be meaningless”
without knowing the first-level information. Ans. 8; see Final Act. 3–4.
Appellants contend that “[k]nowing that the container contains 15 Kg
of broccoli does not require first knowing that the container contains a
vegetable.” Reply Br. 4. But the first-level information comprising the
number “6278677777” identifies the container. Shniberg 10:32–35, Fig. 9.
Without knowing the first-level information, someone would not know what
container contains 15 Kg of broccoli.
CLAIM 1: “ANALYZE THE SECOND OPTICAL
DATA AND DERIVE STATUS INFORMATION”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
(1) “Shniberg does not appear to use second resolution data to obtain
indicator status information” and (2) “the second resolution data in Shniberg
appears to be used to determine additional information about the contents of
the crate, not information pertaining to the indicator itself.” App. Br. 7–8;
see Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

8
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as the Examiner explains, the phrase “status information of the indicator”
encompasses not only temperature, humidity, shock, and tilt but also product
type and weight. Ans. 10; see Final Act. 7. Thus, Figure 9 shows “status
information of the indicator,” i.e., product type “Broccoli” and weight
“15 KG,” derived from “second optical data.” Shniberg 10:35–38, Fig. 9;
see Ans. 10; Final Act. 7. Figure 10 similarly shows “status information of
the indicator” derived from “second optical data.” Shniberg 10:39–11:10,
Fig. 10; see Ans. 10; Final Act. 7. In particular, Shniberg instructs that
sensor 616 located within liquid-crystal display 614 may provide
information about temperature, humidity, shock, and tilt. Shniberg
10:54–11:10, Fig. 10. The Specification indicates that information about
temperature, humidity, shock, and tilt constitutes “status information of the
indicator.” Spec. ¶¶ 36, 44, 46–62, Figs. 4–8. Consistent with that, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that “temperature, humidity, location, tilt and
shock parameters can be regarded as status parameters.” Ans. 10.
SUMMARY FOR INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Shniberg. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and requires “deriving an identification
of the indicator from the first optical data; and based on the identification,
generating a capture window for capturing the second optical data of the
indicator.” App. Br. 21 (Claims App.). Appellants assert that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4 because (1) “Shniberg does not appear to disclose
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

9
that the first resolution information is analyzed to derive an identification of
the indicator” and (2) “the first resolution information in Shniberg appears to
be used to identify the crate and a general classification of its contents”
rather than “an identification of the indicator itself.” App. Br. 8; see Reply
Br. 7. Also, Appellants contend that “there is no ‘capture window’
generated in Shniberg for capturing the second resolution information based
on an identification of the indicator.” App. Br. 8–9; see Reply Br. 7–8.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Shniberg discloses unique
identification numbers that identify indicators as well as objects. Ans. 11;
see Final Act. 7. The Examiner explains that: (1) Figure 9 shows
identification numbers associated with indicators, e.g., the numbers
“6278677777,” “6278623456,” and “6278609876”; (2) the identification
number associated with an indicator affixed to an object serves to identify
not only the object but also the indicator; and (3) when an indicator becomes
separated from an object, the identification number still serves to identify the
indicator. Ans. 11–12; see Shniberg Fig. 9; see also id. Fig. 1 (item 18),
Fig. 2 (item 38), Fig. 3 (item 58).
Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Shniberg discloses a
“capture window” according to claim 4 by describing a “second resolution”
that acquires an “additional level of information.” Ans. 12; see Shniberg
10:22–25, 10:31–38, Figs. 8A–8B, Fig. 9. For instance, the higher
resolution for Figure 8B compared to Figure 8A corresponds to the claimed
“capture window.” Ans. 12; see Shniberg 10:22–25, Figs. 8A–8B.
Similarly, the higher resolution in Figure 9 that acquires the digits “64”
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

10
corresponds to the claimed “capture window.” Ans. 12; see Shniberg
10:35–38, Fig. 9.
Appellants assert that “even after the indicator is removed from the
crate, the number still does not provide an identification of the indicator.”
Reply Br. 7. But that assertion disregards Shniberg’s disclosure that an
indicator may include “a multi-segment, multi-color identifier preferably in
the form of a multi-segment color-coded disc wherein various segments
have various colors.” Shniberg 6:3–6, 6:59–62. When an indicator becomes
separated from an object, the multi-segment, multi-color identifier remains
on the indicator, and the numbers corresponding to the color coding still
identify the indicator. See id. 7:3–18, 7:64–8:2, Fig. 4.
Because Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 4.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. App. Br. 22 (Claims App.).
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for claim 6. App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 6. Because Appellants do not argue the claim separately, we
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 6 for the same reasons as claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10–15, and 17–20
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and specifies that “the status
information comprises an activation status of the indicator.” App. Br. 21
(Claims App.). Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2 because (1) “Shniberg does not use the second resolution
information to derive any status information of the indicator, much less an
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

11
activation status” and (2) “there is no need to capture any image information
to derive any activation status of” Conzelmann’s label because “the label has
been activated” when “affixed to a product.” App. Br. 9–10; see Reply
Br. 8–9.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
we disagree with Appellants’ claim interpretation. The Specification
distinguishes “armed status” from “activation status.” Spec. ¶¶ 43–45,
48–50, 55, 68. The Specification explains that (1) “armed status” concerns
“whether a particular indicator has been armed (i.e., set to detect a particular
detection condition)” and (2) “activation status” concerns “whether a
particular indicator has been activated (i.e., detected and/or is indicating that
a particular type of detection event has been realized/detected).” Id. ¶ 44.
According to the Specification, “activation status” includes “detecting the
presence of (or lack of a presence of) a particular color or shading within” an
indicator. Id. ¶ 55.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Conzelmann discloses a label
with (1) a bar code containing an activation time and (2) an indicator with a
three-segment, ring-shaped area surrounding a central area containing a
time-sensitive and/or temperature-sensitive substance. Ans. 12–13;
Conzelmann 5:39–60, Fig. 1; see Final Act. 8. The ring-shaped area’s three
segments have reference colors corresponding to three freshness states:
a darker color for “fresh,” an intermediate color for “medium,” and a lighter
color for “no longer fresh.” Conzelmann 5:39–60; see Final Act. 8.
“[D]epending on the time elapsed and temperature present,” the central area
“displays either of the three colors that correspond to the colors of the three
segments.” Ans. 13 (citing Conzelmann 5:41–54); see Conzelmann
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

12
3:40–45, 6:23–50, Fig. 3. The central area’s color signifies a particular
freshness state and corresponds to “status information” comprising an
“activation status” of the indicator. Ans. 13; see Final Act. 8. The darker
color for “fresh” corresponds to a first “activation status”; the intermediate
color for “medium” corresponds to a second “activation status”; and the
lighter color for “no longer fresh” corresponds to a third “activation status.”
See Conzelmann 5:39–60, 6:23–50, Fig. 1, Fig. 3; see also Spec. ¶ 55. Each
activation color “indicat[es] that a particular type of detection event has been
realized/detected.” See Spec. ¶ 44. For example, a change from the
intermediate color to the lighter color indicates that the detection event
“no longer fresh” has occurred.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention, Shniberg teaches or suggests
“status information” comprising an “activation status” of the indicator. See
Ans. 11–12; see also App. Br. 9. In particular, Shniberg explains that sensor
616 located within liquid-crystal display 614 may provide information about
temperature, humidity, shock, and tilt. Shniberg 10:54–11:10, Fig. 10. By
providing an actual temperature or humidity reading, for example, sensor
616 supplies its “activation status” by “indicating that a particular type of
detection event has been realized/detected.” See Spec. ¶ 44.
Because Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner
error, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 2.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and specifies that “the activation status
information includes an event direction corresponding to the activation
status.” App. Br. 21 (Claims App.). Appellants contend that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 3 because (1) “Shniberg does not use the second
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

13
resolution information to derive any status information of the indicator,
much less any event direction corresponding to the activation status” and
(2) Conzelmann’s label “provides no direction information.” App. Br.
10–11; Reply Br. 9.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error
because, as explained above for claim 2, Shniberg teaches or suggests
“status information” comprising an “activation status” of the indicator. See
Ans. 11–12; Shniberg 10:54–11:10, Fig. 10. In addition, Shniberg discloses
determining “event direction,” e.g., using tilt indicators, shock indicators,
and drop indicators. See Ans. 5; Shniberg 9:1–4, 10:65–11:3, Fig. 5
(“Dropped–Yes”), Fig. 10 (“Dropped–Yes”), Fig. 11 (“G-Force History”).
Because Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner
error, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 3.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 7
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 because
“Conzelmann does not disclose determining whether an indicator has been
activated.” App. Br. 12; see Reply Br. 10. Appellants also argue that “there
is no need to determine whether the [Conzelmann] label has been activated
because the presence of the label . . . already indicates that it has been
activated.” App. Br. 12.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner relies on the combination of disclosures in Conzelmann and
Shniberg to reject claim 7. Final Act. 9–10. Conzelmann discloses
determining whether an indicator has been activated and a characteristic of
the activation. See Final Act. 10; Conzelmann 5:39–60, 6:23–50, Fig. 1,
Fig. 3. As explained above for claim 2, Conzelmann discloses an indicator
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

14
with a three-segment, ring-shaped area surrounding a central area containing
a time-sensitive and/or temperature-sensitive substance. Ans. 12–13;
Conzelmann 5:39–60, Fig. 1; see Final Act. 8, 10. A darker color in the
central area, signifying “fresh,” shows that the indicator has been activated
in a first “activation status”; an intermediate color in the central area,
signifying “medium,” shows that the indicator has been activated in a second
“activation status”; and a lighter color in the central area, signifying “no
longer fresh,” shows that the indicator has been activated in a third
“activation status.” See Final Act. 8, 10; Ans. 12–13; Conzelmann 5:39–60,
6:23–50, Fig. 1, Fig. 3. Each activation color signifies a different freshness
state and constitutes a different characteristic of the activation. See Spec.
¶¶ 43, 49. The Specification notes that “a change in color” may correspond
to “a change in a characteristic.” Id. ¶ 49.
In addition, Shniberg teaches or suggests determining whether an
indicator has been activated and a characteristic of the activation. See Final
Act. 10; Ans. 11–12. As explained above for claim 2, Shniberg instructs that
sensor 616 located within liquid-crystal display 614 may provide
information about temperature, humidity, shock, and tilt. Shniberg
10:54–11:10, Fig. 10. By providing an actual temperature or humidity
reading, for example, sensor 616 reports that it has been activated, and the
reading’s magnitude constitutes a characteristic of the activation. See Spec.
¶¶ 43–44.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 for obviousness
based on Shniberg and Conzelmann. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 7.
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

15
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and specifies that “at least one
characteristic comprises a direction of event indication.” App. Br. 22
(Claims App.). Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8 because (1) “Shniberg does not use the second resolution
information to derive any status information of the indicator, much less any
event direction corresponding to the activation status” and (2) Conzelmann’s
label “provides no direction information.” App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 11.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error for the
reasons discussed above regarding claim 3. See Ans. 14–15. Thus, we
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 8.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 7 and specifies that “the detection
module is executable to perform text recognition processing on the at least
one image to derive the identification information.” App. Br. 23 (Claims
App.). Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11
because “the indicators in Shniberg do not appear to contain any text” and
therefore “there would also be no text in the image of the indicator.” App.
Br. 14; Reply Br. 11–12.
Appellants’ assertion does not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Shniberg in view of Conzelmann
teaches performing text recognition processing on the at least one image to
derive the identification information” since Shniberg discloses
“identification information” represented as “a series of numbers and text and
these numbers and text are extracted and recognized from captured images
. . . .” Final Act. 11 (citing Shniberg Fig. 1 (item 18), Fig. 2 (item 38), Fig. 3
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

16
(item 58), Fig. 9 (item 504)). The Examiner reasons that “[t]ext processing
techniques must be applied to decode the images and generate text
representations of various information.” Ans. 16 (citing Shniberg Fig. 11).
Appellants assert that “deriving text based on an image of the colors
of the indicator in Shniberg is not the same as performing text recognition on
an image.” Reply Br. 12. But an obviousness analysis “need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim” because the analysis “can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
Shniberg describes “systems and techniques” for location tracking that
“involve the use of bar-codes and other optically sensible codes.” Shniberg
1:22–24; see Final Act. 14. Shniberg discloses scanning a multi-segment,
multi-color identifier and processing the corresponding alphanumeric
information. See, e.g., Shniberg 5:31–49, 6:3–6, 6:59–62, 7:11–13, 8:63–
9:4, 10:39–64, Fig. 1 (items 12 and 18), Fig. 2 (items 32 and 38), Fig. 3
(items 52 and 58), Fig. 9 (items 500 and 504). Conzelmann additionally
discloses scanning a barcode and processing the corresponding
alphanumeric information. See, e.g., Conzelmann 3:40–45, 4:32–34, 5:65–
67, Fig. 1 (item 14); Ans. 13–14. The combination of disclosures taken as a
whole teaches or suggests scanning alphanumeric information itself and then
processing that information. Final Act. 11; see Ans. 15–16.
In addition, Appellants do not direct us to any evidence that
performing text recognition processing would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

17
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19).
To the contrary, the Specification describes text as comparable to other
optical data. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 36, 38–39, 47, 67. For example, the
Specification explains that a serial number or model number “could be
represented as, but not limited to, text content, a barcode image, a QR code
or other type of indicia.” Id. ¶ 47.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 for obviousness
based on Shniberg and Conzelmann. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 11.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 13
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13
because “Shniberg fails to disclose the capture of two images of the
indicator.” App. Br. 15; see Reply Br. 12–14. Appellants also argue that
“the same image output appears to be analyzed in Shniberg at different
resolutions to obtain the different levels of information.” App. Br. 15; Reply
Br. 13. These arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error for the
reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. See Ans. 4–7, 16.
In addition, Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 13 because “the cited references do not appear to disclose any ‘capture
window’ according to Claim 13, much less one that locates an activation
indicator.” App. Br. 15; see Reply Br. 14–15. More specifically, Appellants
assert that Shniberg Figure 9 “does not appear to disclose that, based on the
identification of an indicator, any capture window is displayed for
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

18
‘positioning of the event indicator within the capture window’ for capturing
a second image of the indicator.” App. Br. 15.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examine finds, and we agree, that Shniberg teaches or suggests a
“capture window” according to claim 13. Final Act. 12; Ans. 17. As
explained above for claim 4, Shniberg discloses a “capture window” by
describing a “second resolution” that acquires an “additional level of
information.” Final Act. 12; Ans. 12, 17; see Shniberg 10:22–25, 10:31–38,
Figs. 8A–8B, Fig. 9. As further explained above, the higher resolution for
Figure 8B compared to Figure 8A corresponds to the claimed “capture
window,” and the higher resolution in Figure 9 that acquires the digits “64”
also corresponds to the claimed “capture window.” Ans. 12, 17; see
Shniberg 10:22–25, 10:35–38, Figs. 8A–8B, Fig. 9. The Examiner reasons
that “when capturing the second images, the capturing windows [in
Figure 8B and Figure 9] have to be specifically positioned in a manner that
the selected areas of interest are covered.” Ans. 17.
Because Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 13.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and requires “a detection module
operable to analyze the second optical data to derive an activation status of
the event indicator.” App. Br. 23 (Claims App.). Appellants contend that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 because (1) “Shniberg does not use
the second resolution information to derive any status information of the
indicator, much less an activation status” and (2) “there is no need to capture
any image information to derive any activation status of” Conzelmann’s
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

19
label because “the label has been activated” when “affixed to a product.”
App. Br. 16–17; see Reply Br. 15–16.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error for the
reasons discussed above regarding claim 2. See Ans. 12–13, 18. Thus, we
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 14.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and specifies that “the detection
module is further operable to, in response to determining an activated status
of the event indicator, determine a direction of activation from the second
optical data.” App. Br. 24 (Claims App.). Appellants contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 because (1) “Shniberg does not use the
second resolution information to derive any status information of the
indicator, much less a direction of activation” and (2) Conzelmann’s label
“provides no direction information.” App. Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 16.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error for the
reasons discussed above regarding claim 3. See Ans. 14, 18. Thus, we
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 15.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 13 and specifies that “the imaging
module is further operable to determine location data corresponding to the
captured first optical data.” App. Br. 24 (Claims App.). Appellants contend
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 because (1) “Shniberg does not
use the first resolution information to derive any location information” and
(2) Conzelmann’s label “provides no location information.” App. Br. 18;
Reply Br. 17.
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

20
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Shniberg discloses location tracking
and providing location data for an indicator. Final Act. 14 (citing Shniberg
1:22–24, 1:48–59, 5:60–6:27, Fig. 2); Ans. 19 (citing Shniberg 10:7–25,
10:42–45, Figs. 8A–8B, Fig. 10). Among other things, Shniberg describes a
“methodology for tracking objects” by affixing an indicator to an object and
providing an “output indication” of the object’s location, e.g., by including a
GPS sensor in an indicator. Shniberg 1:48–59, 5:60–66, 10:39–45, Fig. 1
(indicator 12), Fig. 2 (indicator 32), Fig. 3 (indicator 52), Fig. 5 (indicator
100), Fig. 10 (indicator 600 and sensor 602); see Final Act. 14; Ans. 19.
Appellants do not address Shniberg’s disclosure of a GPS sensor in an
indicator. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 17.
Because Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner
error, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 20.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5, 10, 12, AND 17–19
Claim 5 depends directly from claim 1; claims 10 and 12 depend
directly from claim 7; and claims 17–19 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 13. App. Br. 13–16 (Claims App.). Appellants do not argue
patentability separately for dependent claims 5, 10, 12, and 17–19. App.
Br. 11, 13, 16; Reply Br. 9, 11, 15. Because Appellants do not argue the
claims separately, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these dependent
claims for the same reasons as the related base claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 9 and 16
Claim 9 depends directly from claim 7, while claim 16 depends
indirectly from claim 13. App. Br. 22, 24 (Claims App.). Appellants do not
Appeal 2017-005898
Application 13/944,747

21
argue patentability separately for dependent claims 9 and 16. App. Br. 18–
19; Reply Br. 17. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims for the same
reasons as the related base claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED