Ex Parte Hannah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

13907502 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 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.
13/907,502 05/31/2013 Stephen E. Hannah GTEKPR.005C4 5674
20995 7590 06/22/2017
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
MAWARI, REDHWAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN E. HANNAH,
SCOTT J. CARTER, and
JESSE M. JAMES
Appeal 2015-008312
Application 13/907,502
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision2 on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 21 41. App. Br. 1. Claims 1—20 have
1 Appellants identify eight related appeals where “Board decisions have been
issued” stating, “[t]he present application and all of the aforesaid
applications contain substantially identical disclosures and claim priority to a
common parent application.” App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed May
5, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief filed Sept. 17, 2015 (“Reply Br.”), the
Specification filed May 31, 2013 (“Spec.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated
Sept. 4, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Final Rejection dated Jan. 9, 2015 (“Final
Act.”).
Appeal 2015-008312
Application 13/907,502
been canceled. App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to systems for tracking the
movement and statuses of non-motorized vehicles, including but not limited
to shopping carts.” Spec. 12. Claims 21 and 32 are independent. Claim 21
is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below.
21. A shopping cart wheel assembly that supports 2-way
wireless communications, the shopping cart wheel assembly,
comprising:
a shopping cart wheel attached to a caster;
a radio frequency transceiver mounted in the shopping
cart wheel, said radio frequency transceiver configured to send
and receive messages on a wireless network; and
an antenna electrically coupled to the radio frequency
transceiver, the antenna mounted in the shopping cart wheel
such that the antenna does not rotate with a rotating portion of
the shopping cart wheel, the antenna having a curved
configuration that corresponds to a curvature of the shopping
cart wheel, said antenna positioned in the shopping cart wheel
such that the antenna follows behind the caster during wheel
movement.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Van Kol US 4,439,772 Mar. 27, 1984
Moreno US 5,315,290 May 24, 1994
Hilgart US 5,844,130 Dec. 1, 1998
Geiger US 2001/0028301 A1 Oct. 11,2001
Kushida US 2002/0003501 A1 Jan. 10, 2002
Brown US 2002/0027531 A1 Mar. 7, 2002
Treyz US 6,587,835 B1 July 1,2003
Reindl US 2003/0214419 A1 Nov. 20, 2003
2
Appeal 2015-008312
Application 13/907,502
Fujisawa US 2005/0018543 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Moreno, Hilgart, and Reindl.
Claims 22, 28—30, 37—39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moreno, Hilgart, Reindl, and Treyz.
Claims 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moreno, Hilgart, Reindl, Treyz, and Van Kol.
Claims 24 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moreno, Hilgart, Reindl, Treyz, and Fujisawa.3
Claims 25, 26, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moreno, Hilgart, Reindl, and Kushida.
Claim 27, 36, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moreno, Hilgart, Reindl, Brown, and Kushida.4
Claims 31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moreno, Hilgart, Reindl, Treyz, and Geiger.
ANALYSIS
Both independent claims on appeal, (i.e., claims 21 and 32) include
the claim language, “the antenna mounted in the shopping cart wheel such
that the antenna does not rotate” and “said antenna positioned in the
3 The rejection heading lists claims 24 and 25 as being rejected, but in the
body of the rejection, the Examiner correctly identifies claims 24 and 35.
Final Act. 7. Furthermore, Appellants understand that this rejection pertains
to claim 35, not 25. App. Br. 9.
4 The Examiner does not include claim 41 in the list of claims rejected in the
rejection heading, but the Examiner addresses claim 41 in the body of the
rejection. Final Act. 9—10. Appellants also understand that claim 41 is
rejected under this combination of references. App. Br. 12.
3
Appeal 2015-008312
Application 13/907,502
shopping cart wheel such that the antenna follows behind the caster during
wheel movement.” The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Moreno and Hilgart for disclosing a wheel-mounted antenna (with Hilgart
further teaching that the antenna remains stationary while the wheel
component rotates). Final Act. 3, 6—7. Reindl is relied upon for teaching an
“antenna positioned in the shopping cart wheel such that the antenna follows
behind the caster during wheel movement.” Final Act. 3 (referencing “at
least paragraph 0031”).5
Appellants initially contend that Moreno’s receiver 38 and transmitter
42 do not operate on a wireless network because Moreno does not suggest
that such devices are “capable of implementing a wireless network protocol,
or that they operate as, or as part of, an addressable network node.” App.
Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants do not identify where the
Specification expressly defines or otherwise describes the recited “wireless
network” as requiring either a certain protocol or certain nodes or a “signal
that computers can detect and ‘tune’ into.” App. Br. 5. The Examiner, on
the other hand, employs “the broadest reasonable interpretation” and
describes Moreno’s “communication scheme between a store and shopping
carts” as meeting this limitation. Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 2. The
Examiner discusses Moreno’s illustration of “components associated with
the store” and “components associated with the shopping cart.” Ans. 5
(referencing Moreno Fig. 6); see also Moreno Fig. 1. Appellants do not
explain how such devices employing “a transmitted signal, preferably a
5 As noted above, independent claim 32 is separately rejected based on the
further teachings of Treyz and Van Kol. Final Act. 5—7. These additional
references are not relied upon by the Examiner for the limitations identified
above.
4
Appeal 2015-008312
Application 13/907,502
radio frequency signal” as disclosed in Moreno (Moreno 2:9—10) fail to
reasonably teach wireless communication “on a wireless network” as
claimed.
Appellants also address the teachings of Reindl stating, “Reindl does
not disclose either a shopping cart wheel or a caster” and that referenced
antennas 5 and 6 “of Reindl are not positioned inside a wheel.”6 App. Br. 5.
Although Moreno, not Reindl, was relied upon for teaching either a
shopping cart wheel or a caster (see Final Act. 2), it is clear that Reindl’s
antennas 5 and 6 are mounted to the vehicle’s fender at a location “behind
the wheel 9,” and not on the wheel itself.7 Reindl || 28, 31, Fig. 1. Reindl
also fails to disclose any caster. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that “Reindl
teaches said antenna positioned in the shopping cart wheel such that the
antenna follows behind the caster” has no basis for support in Reindl. Final
Act. 3; See also Reply Br. 4.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s stated reason to combine Moreno with
Reindl is “for the purpose of resolving the dynamics of the measurement
issues.” Final Act. 4. This is a reference to the Doppler shift measured in
Reindl between a rotating sensor 16 and fixed antennas 5 and 6 (Reindl 131)
6 The Examiner expresses disagreement “when appellant argues that the
antenna is mounted inside the rotating wheel.” Ans. 7. This statement is
unclear (Appellants respectfully use the term “mischaracterizes”) because
Appellants are not arguing that Reindl’s antenna is mounted inside the
rotating wheel, but instead, that Reindl’s antennas are off-wheel, on the
vehicle’s fender surrounding the wheel. See Reindl Fig. 1; Reply Br. 4.
7 The Examiner states that Reindl’s fender-mounted receiving unit 7
(containing antennas 5 and 6) is part of the recited “wheel assembly”
without any explanation as to why one skilled in the art would reasonably
consider the vehicle’s fender to be part of a wheel assembly. Ans. 7; see
also Reindl Fig. 1.
5
Appeal 2015-008312
Application 13/907,502
in order to measure “the strain or deformation of a tire element of a tire of a
vehicle during its contact with the road while the vehicle is moving.” Reindl
12 (“to acquire data of a dynamic physical process which may also be
referred to as measurement values”). However, the Examiner does not
provide any explanation as to why there is a need to measure the
deformation of a shopping cart wheel while the cart is moving such that it
would be desirable to incorporate Reindl’s teachings so as to “resolv[e] the
dynamics of the measurement issues” as stated.
We are instructed by the Supreme Court that “rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). That need for “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning” is lacking here. Accordingly, and based on the
record presented, we agree with Appellants that “nothing in the record
suggests somehow incorporating Reindl’s antenna placement into a
shopping cart wheel” and that the Examiner “does not establish prima facie
obviousness.” App. Br. 6; see also App. Br. 9.
The additional references cited by the Examiner (i.e., Treyz, Van Kol,
Fujisawa, Brown, Kushida, and Geiger) are not employed by the Examiner
in a manner that might cure the above defect. See Final Act. 4—11. Thus, in
summation, and based on the record presented, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21 and 32 or their dependent
claims 22—31 and 33—41.
6
Appeal 2015-008312
Application 13/907,502
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 21—41 are reversed.
REVERSED
7