Ex Parte Denny

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

11211779 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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. 11/211,779 08/25/2005 Michael Denny 040426 (BLL-0292) 6350 36192 7590 10/31/2012 AT&T Legal Department - CC Attn: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 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 MICHAEL DENNY ____________ Appeal 2009-015328 Application 11/211,779 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR, ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to a method, system and computer program product for managing a reader network infrastructure. See Spec. 18, Abstract of the Disclosure. Appeal 2009-015328 Application 11/211,779 2 Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for managing deployment of an inter-enterprise reader network infrastructure, comprising: searching a database of records for a location corresponding with an event, the searching performed in response to receiving a query for information relating to the event, the records linking the location to the event and storing an inventory of the physical deployment characteristics of reader devices that comprise the inter-enterprise reader network; retrieving a record corresponding to the location from the database to identify the physical deployment characteristics of the reader devices at the location, the physical characteristics specifying a tag type of each of the reader devices at the location; formatting the query according to the deployment characteristics and tag type, the tag type specifying a frequency at which the reader device operates; contacting the location and requesting event data via the query; and in response to receiving the event data from the location: filtering the event data based upon the query; formatting the event data to coincide with the query; and transmitting a response to a source of the query, the response resulting from the filtering and formatting; wherein the inter-enterprise reader network comprises reader devices spanning more than one enterprise system. Appeal 2009-015328 Application 11/211,779 3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Kumar US 2006/0047789 A1 Mar. 2, 2006 (Filed Jul. 29, 2005) Cox US 2005/0092825 A1 May 5, 2005 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Kumar and Cox. Ans. 3-18.1 ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to be dispositive of the claims on appeal: Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 by finding that Kumar and Cox, collectively, teach or suggest a database of records which link a location and an event and which store an inventory of the physical deployment characteristics of reader devices that comprise the inter-enterprise reader network? ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Cox, within paragraph [0004] thereof, to teach or suggest the “storing an inventory of the physical deployment characteristics of reader devices” and, within paragraphs [0008] and [0036] thereof, to teach or suggest “retrieving a 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 17, 2009, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 5, 2009. Appeal 2009-015328 Application 11/211,779 4 record corresponding to the location from the database to identify the physical deployment characteristics of the reader devices at the location, the physical characteristics specifying a tag type of each of the reader devices at the location,” as a basis for the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 14, is not well founded. App. Br. 7-8. Appellant points out that the cited portions of Cox relied upon by the Examiner merely recite the reading and writing of RFID data and fail to disclose or suggest storing the physical deployment characteristics of reader devices in searchable records, as recited in Appellant’s claims. Id at 8. The Examiner responds by citing Kumar ¶ [0072] alleging that Kumar teaches storing an inventory of the physical deployment characteristics, based upon a recitation that servers store information, and reiterating the finding regarding Cox¶ [0004]. Ans. 18. We are not persuaded by the Examiner. This is particularly true in view of the Examiner’s express statement in the Final Rejection dated April, 10, 2008, in which the Examiner acknowledged “Kumar does not explicitly teach storing an inventory of the physical deployment characteristics of reader device” or “the physical characteristics specifying a tag type of each of the reader devices at the location.” Final Rejection, p.6. Further, we find the cited portions of Cox generally describe RFID tags, but do not suggest “storing an inventory of the physical deployment characteristics of reader devices,” as set forth in Appellant’s independent claims. Appeal 2009-015328 Application 11/211,779 5 Additionally, we find the recited inventory data is expressly claimed as utilized in a functional manner to format a query to request data and is not merely descriptive or non-functional. Having found Appellant’s argument on this point persuasive, we have not addressed Appellant’s other arguments. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under §103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED pgc