Ex Parte Ridings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

11275598 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BARRY L. RIDINGS, PHILIP LAZO, and
MOHAMMAD SOLEIMANI
____________

Appeal 2012-011641
Application 11/275,5981
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 According to the Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Symbol
Technologies, Inc., which is said to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Appeal Brief filed May 24, 2012, “App. Br.,” 2).
Appeal 2012-011641
Application 11/275,598

2
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to a method for testing a radio frequency
identification (RFID) reader using diagnostic communications between the
reader and an operational RFID reader (Specification, “Spec.,” ¶ 6).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 11 of the Appeal Brief
(Claims App’x) with the disputed limitations shown in italicized text, as
follows:
1. A method for testing a first radio frequency
identification (RFID) reader, comprising:
testing, by a server, a radio frequency (RF)
communications functionality of the first RFID reader using a
second RFID reader, wherein the RF communications
functionality includes transmitting an RF signal from the first
RFID reader to test a forward link of the first RFID reader
using the second RFID reader and transmitting a second RF
signal from the second RFID reader to the first RFID reader to
test a backward link of the first RFID reader, and wherein the
test of the backward link comprises providing, by the first RFID
reader, an indication to the server that the second RF signal was
received; and

2 The Examiner indicated that claims 2 and 28 were also finally rejected
(Final Office Action entered October 19, 2011, hereinafter “Final Act.”;
Examiner’s Answer entered June 18, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.,” 4, 5). Claims
2 and 28, however, were previously canceled on September 20, 2010 and
July 18, 2011, respectively. In addition, the Examiner stated that claim 29 is
objected to as being dependent on a rejected claim (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3).
Because claim 29 has not been rejected, it is not before us.
Appeal 2012-011641
Application 11/275,598

3
transmitting an indication from the second RFID reader
to the server that the first RFID reader has failed if the RF
signal is not received by the second RFID reader.

The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 11–14, 16–20, 23, 24, and 27 as
unpatentable over Krishna;3 and
II. Claims 6–10, 15, 21, 22, 25, and 26 as unpatentable over
Krishna in view of Carrender.4
(Ans. 4–8.)

DISCUSSION
I.
With respect to Rejection I, the Appellants focus their arguments on
claims 1, 12, and 17, both collectively and exclusively (App. Br. 8–9).
Therefore, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 1 as
representative of the claims subject to this rejection and confine our
discussion to this representative claim.
The Examiner found that Krishna describes every limitation of claim
1 except it “is unclear with respect to [the second RFID reader] transmitting
an indication [to the server] that the first reader [has] failed” if an RF signal
is not received by the second RFID reader in the backward link test (Ans. 4–
5). The Examiner further found, however, that Krishna teaches that the

3 United States Patent Application 2006/0022800 A1 published February 2,
2006.
4 United States Patent 7,265,675 B1 issued September 4, 2007.
Appeal 2012-011641
Application 11/275,598

4
second RFID reader, under the control of a server processor, has the ability
to monitor and evaluate the state/status of the first RFID reader being tested,
including deviations in signal strength, which would be indicative of a
malfunction (id. at 5). Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to cause the
second RFID reader to send an indication of a failure of the first RFID
reader to the processor server “when the first reader being tested does not
send signals as expected” as “the server is always in physical contact with
and monitoring the status and reports from all readers” (id.).
The Appellants only argument is that Krishna neither teaches nor
suggests a reader that reports back to the processor in response to a failure to
receive any RF signal from another reader being tested, as required by claim
1 (App. Br. 8–9).
Thus, a dispositive issue arising from these contentions is whether the
Examiner articulated a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning to
a support a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been prompted to modify Krishna’s method in the manner claimed by the
Appellants such that a second RFID reader provides an indication to a server
that a first RFID reader being tested has failed when an RF signal from the
first RFID reader is not received by the second RFID reader. We answer
this question in the affirmative. Discerning no reversible error in the
Examiner’s factual findings, analysis, and legal conclusion as set forth in the
Answer, we adopt them as our own and add the following comments for
emphasis.
Krishna teaches a method for enhancing the reliability of an RFID
system comprising an array or network of RFID readers, wherein a receiving
Appeal 2012-011641
Application 11/275,598

5
reader can evaluate the status of a “transmitting reader by determining the
signal level, the transmitting reader’s settings relating to frequency, time,
and power, and the transmitting reader’s frequency/time resource demands”
(¶ 76) (emphasis added). According to Krishna, “the reader undergoing
evaluation can identify itself by sending codes or commands in a proprietary
or reserved field of a message packet, as defined by the reader
communications protocol” (id.). In one embodiment (Figs. 14b), Krishna
teaches that readers 1402, 1416 provide information relating to the received
power level samples from reader 1404 to mid-level processor 1406 to
generate a baseline power profile and then readers 1402, 1416 perform RF
health monitoring of the transmitter component of reader 1404 such that
mid-level processor 1406 can detect and examine deviations of the generated
power profile from the baseline power profile to determine whether the
transmitter component of reader 1404 is operating properly (¶ 348).
Given these teachings, we are in complete agreement with the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion that “[a]lthough not expressly taught, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . that the
power level [being monitored] include[s] zero . . . .” (Ans. 7.) Indeed,
because Krishna teaches, in considerably more detail relative to the
Appellants’ claimed subject matter, detecting and examining any deviation
from a previously determined baseline, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood from common sense that a zero power level, which
would result in the greatest deviation from the baseline, is indicative of
inoperativeness of the reader being tested. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v.
InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (an analysis of
obviousness “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense
Appeal 2012-011641
Application 11/275,598

6
available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require
explication in any reference or expert opinion”).
For these reasons and those set forth in the Answer, we uphold
Rejection I.
II.
For Rejection II, the Appellants rely on the same arguments offered in
support of claims 1, 12, and 17 against Rejection I (App. Br. 9). Therefore,
we uphold Rejection II for the same reasons discussed above for Rejection I.

ORDER
Rejections I and II are 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)(1).
AFFIRMED

cdc