Ex Parte Bauchot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 21, 2016

12336594 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/336,594 12/17/2008 Frederic Bauchot
30449 7590 10/25/2016
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
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.
FR920070087US 1 2197
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2016 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):
30449@IPLA WUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte FREDERIC BAUCHOT, JEAN-YVES CLEMENT,
GERARD MARMIGERE, and JOAQUIN PICON
Appeal2015-001119
Application 12/336,594
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-20, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to pallet management systems and
packaging supply chains. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1 Claims 8 and 9 are not before us, because they are objected to as being
dependent from a rejected base claims. See Final Act. 15.
Appeal2015-001119
Application 12/336,594
1. A method for dividing a set of tagged items into subsets, each
tagged item being tagged with a passive Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) tag, said method comprising:
instructing, by a processor of a computer system, a RFID reader to
poll the RFID tags of all tagged items in a specified region having fixed
boundaries to generate information comprising, for each tagged item in the
region, a spatial location of each tagged item and a list of all other tagged
items in the region which are adjacent to each tagged item by being within a
specified constant distance (Rlimit) from each tagged item, said region being
entirely within a communication range (Rrange) of the RFID reader;
said processor splitting the region into a plurality of non-overlapping
subregions such that the region consists of the non-overlapping subregions
collectively;
said processor determining which tagged item in each subregion is a
centered tagged item, said determining which tagged item in each subregion
is the centered tagged item comprising utilizing the generated information to
determine that the centered tagged item in each subregion has more adjacent
tagged items in the subregion containing the centered tagged item than does
each other tagged item in the subregion containing the centered tagged item,
wherein said utilizing the generated information to determine each centered
tagged item comprises utilizing the spatial location of each tagged item in
the subregion containing the centered tagged item and the list of all other
tagged items in the subregion containing the centered tagged item which are
adjacent to each tagged item in the subregion containing the centered tagged
item by being within the specified constant distance (Rlimit) from each
tagged item in the subregion containing the centered tagged item;
said processor selecting the centered tagged item in each subregion as
a central tagged item for each subregion; and
said processor outlining a virtual boundary around the central tagged
item to enclose the central tagged item and a portion of the tagged items in
each subregion which are adjacent to the central tagged item by being
within the specified constant distance (Rlimit) of the central tagged
item, said virtual boundary defining a subset of the set of tagged items for
each subregion as comprising the central tagged item and all other tagged
items within the virtual boundary, wherein the portion of the tagged items in
each subregion consists of all, or less than all, tagged items which are
adjacent to the central tagged item in each subregion.
2
Appeal2015-001119
Application 12/336,594
References and Rejections
Claims 1-5, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Woolley (US 5,804,810, issued Sept. 8, 1998)
and Maltseff (US 8,199,689 B2, issued June 12, 2012).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Woolley, Maltseff, and Terada (US 2007 /0288995 Al,
published Dec. 13, 2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Woolley, Maltseff, Terada, and Steeves (US 2006/0066444 Al,
published Mar. 30, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding Woolley and Maltseff
collectively teach "said processor determining which tagged item in each
subregion is a centered tagged item, said determining which tagged item in
each subregion is the centered tagged item comprising utilizing the
generated information to determine that the centered tagged item in each
subregion has more adjacent tagged items in the subregion containing the
centered tagged item than does each other tagged item in the subregion
containing the centered tagged item," as recited in independent claim 1
(emphasis added).2 See App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4.
2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2015-001119
Application 12/336,594
The Examiner maps the claimed "centered tagged item" to Maltseff' s
bridge tag. See Final Act. Act. 6. The Examiner initially cites Maltseff' s
column 6, lines 28--45 for the italicized claim limitation. See Final Act. 6-7.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds:
[T]he appellant argues on Page 12 that the Maltseff
reference does not teach utilizing the generated information to
determine that the centered tagged item in each subregion has
more adjacent tagged items in the subregion containing the
centered tagged item. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 recites, "to generate information comprising, for each
tagged item in the region, a spatial location of each tagged
item". Said utilizing is further defined by comprising utilizing
the spatial location of each tagged item in the subregion
containing the centered tagged item. Thus, the "utilizing" may
be interpreted merely as utilizing the fact that the tags are
relatively close to the reader such that the reader may
communicate with the tags. Maltseff discloses determining
bridge tags based upon the ability to communicate with
neighboring tags and relative emitted power based upon the
tags (see Maltseff, Col. 6, Lines 39-45).
Ans. 3--4 (emphasis added).
We have examined the cited Maltseff portions, and we agree with
Appellants that they do not discuss "said determining which tagged item in
each subregion is the centered tagged item comprising utilizing the
generated information to determine that the centered tagged item in each
subregion has more adjacent tagged items in the subregion containing the
centered tagged item than does each other tagged item in the subregion
containing the centered tagged item," as required by claim 1. Nor do the
Examiner's above findings (Ans. 3--4) show how the cited Maltseff portions
teach the italicized limitation. In particular, the Examiner's findings that
"Maltseff discloses determining bridge tags based upon the ability to
4
Appeal2015-001119
Application 12/336,594
communicate with neighboring tags and relative emitted power based upon
the tags" (Ans. 3--4) is insufficient for showing Maltseff teaches the
italicized claim limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 10 and 16 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 10 and
16. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 0 and 16.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-7,
11-15, and 17-20, which depend from claims 1, 10, and 16.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 10-20.
REVERSED
5