Ex Parte McKalko

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2013

10109237 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES DOUGLAS MCKALKO
____________

Appeal 2011-007012
Application 10/109,237
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007012
Application 10/109,237

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9, 14, and
151. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates to a system and method for entering asset data
using automatic scanning techniques and merging this data with manually
entered data in a first inventory tool. The merged data is then accessed with
a second inventory tool to perform inventory processes not provided by the
first inventory tool (Spec. 1:2-9).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. An inventory system, comprising:
an application engine embodied in a computer
comprising a network I/O, a CPU, and one or more databases,
for entering and validating a plurality of first data relating to
each of a plurality of workstation assets, wherein said first data
is not stored in a memory within said assets;
a first inventory tool having a first database within said
first inventory tool, said first inventory tool adapted for
automatically gathering without human intervention and storing
in said first database, a plurality of second data on said each of
a plurality of workstation assets, each said second data stored in
a hard drive memory device within said each of a plurality of
workstation assets, via a communication connection between
said first tool and said each of a plurality of workstation assets;
a merging capability in said application engine, for
storing said plurality of first data into said first database and
merging said plurality of first data with said plurality of second
data, via a communication connection between said application
engine and said first inventory tool;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed October 11, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
December 27, 2010).
Appeal 2011-007012
Application 10/109,237

3
a second inventory tool having a second database within
said second inventory, said second inventory tool adapted to
perform an inventory process not provided by said first
inventory tool; and
a mapping capability in said application engine, for
mapping the merged plurality of first and plurality of second
data from said first database in said first inventory tool into said
second database in said second inventory tool via a
communication connection between said application engine and
said second inventory tool.

The Examiner has rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1, 2 and
7-9 as unpatentable over Besnard (WO 00/45324, pub. Aug. 3, 2000),
Maynard (US 5,949,335, iss. Sep. 7, 1999), and Johnson (WO 00/62263,
pub. Oct. 19, 2000); claim 14 as unpatentable over Besnard and Johnson;
and claim 15 as unpatentable over Besnard, Johnson, and McCasland (US
5,856,931, iss. Jan. 5, 1999).

We AFFIRM.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Besnard, Maynard, and Johnson renders obvious
independent claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 5-7). After carefully considering
Appellants’ arguments, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings
and rationales, as set forth on pages 10-16 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Specifically, Besnard discloses a reader/writer radio frequency identification
(RFID) tag (page 2, lines 29-30) which includes a data store (page 3, line 1),
which corresponds to the recited “first database within the first inventory
Appeal 2011-007012
Application 10/109,237

4
tool.” Maynard discloses transferring data between transponder tag 20 and
EEPROM 18 of a workstation (col. 6, ll. 36-37, 51-52), which corresponds
to the recited “said first inventory tool adapted for… gathering… and storing
in said first database, a plurality of second data on said each of a plurality of
workstation assets, each said second data stored in a hard drive memory
device within said each of a plurality of workstation assets.”

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 7-9, 14, and 15 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls