SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021000437 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022)

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. 15/714,832 09/25/2017 Duanfeng He 152029US01 9227 126568 7590 03/22/2022 Zebra Technologies Corporation 3 Overlook Point Lincolnshire, IL 60069 EXAMINER LEE, JOHN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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): docketing@zebra.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DUANFENG HE Appeal 2021-000437 Application 15/714,832 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 13, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Symbol Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000437 Application 15/714,832 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims are directed to “[v]alidating the provenance of an object . . . by matching a pattern on the object, such as a logo or trademark, with a template.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of verifying a pattern, the method comprising: mapping a grid onto a template, the grid dividing the template into a plurality of grid sections; capturing a digital image of an object; applying a correlation function to at least some of the plurality of grid sections, the correlation function comparing one of the plurality of grid sections to a respective portion of the digital image of the object, the correlation function further outputting a correlation score of each of the at least some of the plurality of grid sections; determining a correlation level between the template and the digital image of the object, the correlation level being based at least in part on the correlation score of each of the at least some of the plurality of grid sections; and verifying the object if the correlation level satisfies a match condition, wherein the correlation score is determined by repeatedly applying the correlation function to different portions of the digital image until a best match is found, and wherein the different portions of the image are chosen based on a rotation of a grid section with respect to the image of the object. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-000437 Application 15/714,832 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Chen et al. (“Chen”) US 2007/0014488 A1 Jan. 18, 2007 Bernstein et al. (“Bernstein”) US 2011/0026806 A1 Feb. 3, 2011 Davis US 2013/0188870 A1 July 25, 2013 REJECTION Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bernstein, Chen, and Davis. Final Act. 3-10. ANALYSIS Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select independent claim 1 as representative of independent claim 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the asserted combination of Bernstein, Chen, and Davis teaches or suggests the “mapping,” “applying,” and “determining” limitations, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellant first argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Bernstein teaches “mapping a grid onto a template, the grid dividing the template into a plurality of grid sections.” Id. at 7-8. Appellant argues that “the grid described in Bernstein is used to generate the reference emission map, rather than dividing the reference emission map into a plurality of grid sections which are subsequently used for comparisons.” Id. at 7; see also Reply Br. 2 (asserting the Examiner has not “explained how partitioning the chip 1000 up into small grids or tiles (step 908 [of Fig. 9] of Bernstein) during the creation of an emission map is tied with the comparison of two emission maps in step 510 [of Figure 5] to arrive at steps 516/520 (see Appeal 2021-000437 Application 15/714,832 4 Bernstein ¶[0053]).”). In support of its argument, Appellant cites paragraphs 37, 48, 53, and 57 of Bernstein (id. at 7-8), which describe how a grid is used in Bernstein to generate a reference emission map. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred for the reasons set forth in the Final Action (Final Act. 3-5) and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 11), which we incorporate here by reference. The Examiner found that Bernstein teaches partitioning a chip into small grids or tiles. Ans. 11 (citing Bernstein Figs. 9, 10). Appellant has not persuasively explained why the cited portions of Bernstein would not have at least suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill “mapping a grid onto a template, the grid dividing the template into a plurality of grid sections,” as recited in claim 1. Rather, Appellant’s arguments focus primarily on what the grid in Bernstein is used for. See Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 1-2. It is not necessary, however, for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellant’s Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (“[N]either the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellant] controls” in an obviousness analysis.). Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner’s conclusion-that the “mapping” limitation, as recited in claim 1, is sufficiently broad to cover partitioning a chip into small grids or tiles-is erroneous. Moreover, the Examiner found that the combination of cited portions of Bernstein, Chen, and Davis teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3-5. Appellant’s attack on Bernstein, standing alone, is insufficient to persuade us that the cited teachings of the combined references fail to teach or suggest Appeal 2021-000437 Application 15/714,832 5 the limitations of claim 1. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Bernstein, Chen, and Davis teach or suggest the disputed “mapping” limitation, as recited in claim 1. Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bernstein, Chen, and Davis teaches or suggests the “applying” and “determining” limitations, as recited in claim 1. Appellant argues that Chen teaches applying a correlation C(x,y) to determine the degree of similarity between a road-labeled image and a template. See Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues, however, that Chen “does not teach or suggest determining a correlation level between the overall template (i.e., the aggregation of the grid sections) and the road-labeled image.” Id. Appellant argues that Chen merely describes that a correlation may be computed for an individual template. Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive at least because Appellant attacks Chen individually, even though the Examiner relied on the combined teachings of Bernstein and Chen to teach or suggest the disputed “applying” and “determining” limitations, as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 11-13. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Examiner found that Bernstein teaches Appeal 2021-000437 Application 15/714,832 6 applying a correlation to at least some of the plurality of grid sections, the correlation function comparing one of the plurality of grid sections to a respective portion of the digital image of the object, the correlation function further outputting a correlation of each of the at least some of the plurality of grid sections (Bernstein discloses a comparing process applying the correlation function at Fig. 5-510 and ¶0062); and determining a correlation between the template and the digital image of the object, the correlation level being based at least in part on the correlation of each of the at least some of the plurality of grid sections (Bernstein discloses matching decision block depending on the results of the comparing process using the correlation function at Bernstein; Figs. 5-510 and 516 and ¶¶0034 and 0062). Ans. 12. The Examiner further found that Bernstein does not disclose the correlation function further outputting a correlation score of each of the at least some of the plurality of sections and determining a correlation level being based at least in part on the correlation score of each of the at least some of the plurality of grid sections, as claim 1 requires. Id. The Examiner relied on Chen’s correlation process combined with Bernstein’s matching process for the “applying” and “determining” limitations. Id. at 12-13 (citing Chen ¶¶ 192-194). Because Appellant has not addressed persuasively what the combined teachings of Bernstein and Chen would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the Examiner’s rejection. See Reply Br. 2. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bernstein, Chen, and Davis teaches or suggests the disputed “applying” and “determining” limitations, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as of independent claim 8, grouped therewith. Appeal 2021-000437 Application 15/714,832 7 Because Appellant has not presented separate arguments for dependent claims 3-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those claims as well. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 7- 10, 12, 13 103 Bernstein, Chen, Davis 1, 3-5, 7- 10, 12, 13 RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED