Ex Parte Nannarone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2017

13412052 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/412,052 03/05/2012
24280 7590 01/06/2017
CHOATE, HALL & STEWARTLLP
TWO INTERN A TI ON AL PLACE
BOSTON, MA 02110
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Owen Nannarone
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.
2010285-0001 3466
EXAMINER
SANDIFORD, DEV AN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2017 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):
patentdocket@choate.com
jnease@choate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OWEN NANNARONE, LEN NANNARONE,
MARCUS EDWARD WILSON, and TIMOTHY H. LINBERG
Appeal 2016-004043
Application 13/412,052
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2016-004043
Application 13/412,052
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10, 12-15, 18, and 20-27. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
The invention relates to using a device to communicate with
electronic labels (Spec. 4:31-5:2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
identifying, by a monitoring device, a transmission signal of
an electronic label, wherein the monitoring device comprises an
antenna and a processor;
determining a distance for monitoring the transmission signal
of the electronic label;
calibrating a transmission strength for communication with
the electronic label via the transmission signal, wherein the
transmission strength is calibrated to approximately achieve the
distance;
configuring a communication link between the antenna and
the electronic label at approximately the transmission strength;
monitoring availability of the communication link;
identifying a loss of connection with the communication link;
and
responsive to the loss of connection, causmg, by the
monitoring device, an alert to be issued.
2
Appeal2016-004043
Application 13/412,052
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Batra
Johnson
US 2007/0285229 Al Dec. 13, 2007
US 2010/0102993 Al Apr. 29, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Johnson.
Claims 8, 18, and 20-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Johnson.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson and Batra.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants contend, "Johnson does
not disclose 'determining a distance for monitoring the transmission signal
of the electronic label"' (Br. 8). Specifically, Appellants argue, "the
existence of a maximum physical range does not satisfy the features of
independent claim l" (id.). Appellants also contend, "Johnson does not
disclose 'calibrating a transmission strength for communication with the
electronic label via the transmission signal, wherein the transmission
strength is calibrated to approximately achieve the distance"' (id.).
Specifically, Appellants argue, "simply stating that the range of an RFID tag
depends on the monitoring device output (see Office Action at 3) does not
3
Appeal2016-004043
Application 13/412,052
teach the claimed method" (id. at 9). We are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments.
Johnson discloses a system where a
monitoring device is adapted to determine or approximate the
distance of the RFID tag from the monitoring device based on
the received RFID signal strength and/or time delay in receiving
the RFID tag's response to interrogation and to activate the alarm
if a distance threshold of the RFID tag from the monitoring
device is exceeded, whereas this distance threshold is lower than
the maximum physical range of the RFID tag.
(Johnson, Abstract). Johnson further discloses, "[e]ach RFID tag may also
have a specified sensitivity that defines the distance threshold beyond which
the alarm is sounded" (Johnson, i-f 41). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8)
and find that Johnson's distance threshold for an RFID tag meets the claim 1
limitation of "determining a distance for monitoring the transmission signal
of the electronic label."
Appellants argue that "the existence of a maximum physical range" of
an RFID tag in Johnson fails to disclose the "determining a distance"
limitation (Br. 8). This argument, however, is not persuasive because the
Examiner relies on Johnson's distance threshold of the RFID tag, not the
maximum physical range of the RFID tag, for disclosing "determining a
distance" (Ans. 8). Johnson discloses the distance threshold is a different
value that is less than the maximum physical range (Johnson, Abstract).
Thus, Appellants' argument does not specifically explain why Johnson's
distance threshold fails to disclose, "determining a distance for monitoring
the transmission signal of the electronic label," as recited in claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) and find Johnson discloses
the claim 1 limitation "calibrating a transmission strength for
4
Appeal2016-004043
Application 13/412,052
communication with the electronic label via the transmission signal, wherein
the transmission strength is calibrated to approximately achieve the
distance." Appellants' Specification provides "[ c ]alibrating the transmission
strength may include energizing the electronic label, through the antenna, at
a first energy level" (Spec. 1 :30-31 ). Accordingly, we find the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "calibrating a transmission strength" includes
sending a transmission signal from a monitoring device to an RFID tag at a
certain power level. Johnson discloses, "[t]he control unit sends a
monitoring signal that is received by the RFID tag. The RFID tag is
inductively powered by the monitoring signal and responds with an identity
signal." (Johnson, i-f 40). Johnson's monitoring of an RFID tag thus
discloses, "calibrating a transmission strength" because some power level is
used in transmitting the monitoring signal.
Further, Johnson discloses, "[t]he range of a passive RFID tag varies
from a few inches to a few meters, depending on the monitoring device
power output" (Johnson, i-f 15). Moreover, "[b ]ecause of the limited range of
the monitoring signal and the identity signal, removal of the RFID security
RFID tag from proximity to the base station causes the identity signal not to
be received by the base station. Thus, when the base station sends a
monitoring signal but no identity signal is received in response, an alarm is
sounded." (Johnson, i-f 40). Accordingly, Johnson's distance threshold of an
RFID tag is based on the power of the monitoring signal, because the
distance threshold is the limit beyond which an identity signal cannot be
received from the RFID tag in response to a monitoring signal (see Johnson,
i-fi-1 40-41 ). Thus, we find that Johnson's sending a monitoring signal and
receiving an identity signal from an RFID tag up to the defined distance
threshold for the RFID tag discloses the claim 1 limitation "wherein the
5
Appeal2016-004043
Application 13/412,052
transmission strength is calibrated to approximately achieve the distance."
In other words, Johnson's monitoring signal is "calibrated to approximately
achieve" the distance threshold of an RFID tag because the identity signal of
the RFID tag can be received up to this distance, but not beyond this
distance, at which point an alarm is sounded.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 4--6, 12, and 13 not specifically argued separately.
Although Appellants nominally argue claim 14 separately, the argument
presented-"[ t ]he existence of a maximum physical range does not satisfy
the features of independent claim 14" (Br. 1 O}-is similar to the argument
discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14, and claim 15 which depends
therefrom, for the same reasons discussed above.
The Obviousness Rejections
Appellants contend "[ t ]he existence of a maximum physical range
does not satisfy the features of independent claim 23 ," namely, "determine
an energy level correlating to a range of transmission" (Br. 11 ). Appellants
also contend:
the Office Action admits that Johnson fails to disclose
instructions to "receive a pairing request via a user interface" as
required by independent claim 23. The Office Action, however,
concludes that it would have been obvious to utilize the teachings
of Johnson to reach the claimed invention. Appellant
respectfully disagrees. As recognized by the Office Action,
Johnson does not disclose these features.
(Br. 11-12). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
6
Appeal2016-004043
Application 13/412,052
Appellants' first argument that Johnson's maximum physical range
for an RFID tag fails to disclose the disputed claim 23 feature (Br. 11) is not
persuasive because it does not address the Examiner's findings. That is, the
Examiner finds Johnson's disclosure that "[t]he range of a passive RFID tag
varies from a few inches to a few meters, depending on the monitoring
device power output" (Johnson, i-f 15) and"[ e Jach RFID tag may also have a
specified sensitivity that defines the distance threshold beyond which the
alarm is sounded" (Johnson, i-f 41) meets the claim 23 limitation "determine
an energy level correlating to a range of transmission" (see Final Act. 14--15;
Ans. 11). Appellants' argument directed to the maximum physical range for
an RFID (Br. 11) does not specifically explain why these quoted portions of
Johnson which the Examiner relies upon fail to disclose the disputed
limitation.
Appellants' second argument that the claim 23 limitation "receive a
pairing request via a user interface" would not have been obvious over
Johnson (Br. 11-12) is also not persuasive. Johnson discloses the
monitoring device may employ a microprocessor to drive a user interface,
which "allows a user to interactively add or remove the RFID tag
identification codes form the monitoring device memory, and to activate and
deactivate stored RFID tags" (Johnson, i-f 42). Appellants have not
specifically explained why the Examiner's finding that Johnson's user
interface would have suggested the claimed "pairing request" limitation
(Ans. 10-12) is in error. Rather, as quoted above, Appellants merely state,
"Johnson does not disclose these features" (Br. 12). However, the mere
assertion that elements of the claim are missing from the reference, without
any explanation, is not sufficient to show error in the Examiner's rejection.
Ex parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843 at *4 (BPAI 2009) ("Informative")
7
Appeal2016-004043
Application 13/412,052
("Appellants' argument ... repeatedly restates elements of the claim
language and simply argues that the elements are missing from the
reference. However, Appellants do not present any arguments to explain
why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error.").
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
23, and claims 24--27 not specifically argued separately. Further, Appellants
provide no specific arguments for claims 8, 10, 18, and 20-22, which
depend from claims 1 and 14. Thus, we are also not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 8, 10, 18, and 20-22 for the reasons discussed
above regarding claims 1 and 14.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1, 2, 4--6, and 12-15.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
8, 10, 18, and 20-27.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2,
4--6, 8, 10, 12-15, 18, and 20-27 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8