Ex Parte Luetzelberger

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2016

12843661 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/843,661 07/26/2010 65913 7590 04/27/2016 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dirk Luetzelberger 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. AT040032US2 6593 EXAMINER ELLIS, SUEZU Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2876 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/27/2016 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): ip.department.us@nxp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DIRK LUETZELBERGER1 Appeal2014-002367 Application 12/843,661 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLEY A. FRANKLIN, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Dirk Luetzelberger ("Luetzelberger") timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-15, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We reverse. The real party in interest is listed as NXP B.V. (Appeal Brief, filed 28 August 2013 ("Br."), 3.) 2 Office action mailed 28 December 2012 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR"). Appeal2014-002367 Application 12/843,661 A. Introduction 3 OPfNION The subject matter on appeal relates to a method (claim 1 ), a mobile (e.g., hand-held) device (claim 8), and a "system" (claim 15) for finding objects to which a contactless readable data carrier such as a Radio Frequency Identification Device ("RFID") Tag (hereinafter, "tag") is attached. (Spec. 5, 11. 19--29.) According to the '661 Specification, among the advances for which patent protection is sought relates to reducing automatically the effective reading area of the mobile device upon locating a plurality of tags similar to the sought-after tag. (Id. at 8, 11. 4--6.) The Specification reveals that by reducing the effective reading area, fewer tags will be read, and the sought-after item can be located more readily. (Id. at 11. 4--6.) Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads: Object finding method for finding an object provided with a contactless readable data carrier, wherein [a] descriptive data stored in the data carrier are sent to a reading device when the data carrier is in the effective area of the reading device, wherein [b] the descriptive data received from the data carrier are compared with predefined profile data in respect of the fulfillment of at least one comparison condition, and wherein 3 Application 12/843,661, Method, reader and system for finding objects, filed 26 July 2010 as a continuation of 11/630,846, filed 28 April 2008, now abandoned, which the national stage of PCT/IB05/52015, filed 20 June 2005, claiming the benefit of EPO 04102946.3, filed 24 June 2004. We refer to the '"661 Specification," which we cite as "Spec." 2 Appeal2014-002367 Application 12/843,661 [ c] the reading device issues a notification upon fulfillment of said comparison condition, wherein [d] the reading device upon reception of descriptive data fulfilling the comparison condition from a number of data carriers displays a hit list of these objects and wherein [ e] an object can be selected from the hit list to which a search can be restricted using the reading device to find the selected object from the objects in the hit list, wherein [ f] the search comprises automatically reducing the effective area of the reading device to facilitate a restricted search for the selected object. (Claims App., Br. 18; indentation, paragraphing4, bracketed material, and emphasis added.) The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5 : A. Claims 1-3, 7, 8-10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Paleiov, 6 Garber,7 Mon, 8and Tanaka9. 4 In compliance with 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.75(i) (2013): "Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation." 5 Examiner's Answer mailed 8 October 2013 ("Ans."). 6 Ilan Paleiov and Benjamin Cohen, Interactive enhancement for printed books, U.S. Patent No. 6,275,142 Bl (2001). 7 Sharon R. Garber et al., Radio frequency identification systems applications, U.S. Patent No. 7,044,373 Bl (2006). 8 Jorge Mon, System and method for finding a specific RFID tagged article located in a plurality of RFID tagged articles, U.S. Patent No. 6,354,493 B 1 (2002). 9 Takashi Tanaka et al., Method for multi-reading a plurality of ID 's, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0017544 Al (26 January 2006), based on an international application filed 3 July 2003. 3 Appeal2014-002367 Application 12/843,661 Al. Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Paleiov, Garber, Mon, Tanaka, and Bohm10â€¢ A2. Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Paleiov, Garber, Mon, Tanaka, and Ortega 11 â€¢ B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. Luetzelberger urges, inter alia, that Tanaka does not disclose or suggest step [f], "automatically reducing the effective area of the reading device to facilitate a restricted search for the selected object." The Examiner finds that Paleiov, Garber, and Mon describe steps [a] through [ e ], "[h ]owever they fail to expressly disclose the search comprises the reduction being performed automatically, i.e., automatically reducing the effective area of the reading device to facilitate a restricted search for the selected object." Such a teaching, the Examiner finds, is provided by Tanaka at paragraphs [0012], [0047]-[0049], and [0070]. (FR 5, 11. 3-5.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that Tanaka teaches the interrogator when querying specifies a read range of IDs, and permits a response from only the transponders whose IDs are within the read range [0010], and 1Â° Charles P. Bohm et al., Apparatus and method for finding records in a database by formulating a query using equivalent terms which correspond to terms in the input query, U.S. Patent No. 5,404,507 (1995). 11 Ruben Ernesto Ortega and Dwayne Edward Bowman, System and method for correcting spelling errors in search queries using both matching and non-matching search terms, U.S. Patent No. 6,401,084 Bl (2002). 4 Appeal2014-002367 Application 12/843,661 when there is a plurality of responses to the query of the interrogator, automatically reducing the size of the read range by half in the subsequent query [0012], [0047]-[0049], Fig. 4. (FR 9, 11. 12-16; emphasis added.) Thus, the Examiner finds that the "read range" described by Tanaka is a range of labels, not a physical distance between objects. The Examiner reasons that "by automatically reducing the size of the read range in Tanaka, fewer RFID tags (transponder) will respond when queried." (Id. at 11. 16- 18.) On this basis, the Examiner concludes that Tanaka teaches automatically reducing the effective area of the reading device. (Id. at 11. 18-22.) Although claims are to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, so that "ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed," 12 claim terms must be read in light of the supporting disclosure 13 . In the present case, Mon arguably describes, in Fig. 3, changing the effective reading area of RFID reader 2 relative to the sought-after objects 6, 60, and 61 by moving reader 2 in the directions of arrows 16 (away), 19 (towards) and 17, 18 (parallel to) the row of objects. Tanaka's disclosure, in an abstract sense, perhaps, can be read as an abstract narrowing of an abstract dimension (the range of labels, arguably a measure of area in "RFID label space" (to coin a phrase). The 12 In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 13 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(explaining that the PTO applies "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification" (emphasis added).) 5 Appeal2014-002367 Application 12/843,661 Examiner has not, however, directed our attention to any disclosure in Luetzelberger's '661 Specification, or in the other cited prior art, indicating that a range in RFID-label space would have been considered by the artisan to be a measure of the "effective area of a reading device" recited in the claim. Nor has the Examiner explained how the '661 Specification would have been understood to include a range of identification labels in the definition of the term "effective area of the reading device." In summary, the Examiner's findings of fact underlying the legal conclusion of obviousness are based on an incorrect interpretation of the term "effective area of the reading device." The Examiner makes no findings regarding the remaining references that cure this incorrect interpretation. The rejections are therefore reversed. C. Order It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-15 is reversed. REVERSED 6