Ex Parte Arteaga et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

11874554 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2012)

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.
11/874,554 10/18/2007 Carlos Arteaga 1933.0510000 2710
26111 7590 09/04/2012
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CARLOS ARTEAGA and FRANKY MARTIN
____________

Appeal 2011-007234
Application 11/874,5541
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS
MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant(s) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9-17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is iAnywhere Solutions, Inc.
2 Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2011-007234
Application 11/874,554

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention concerns control of RFID readers in a dense
RFID environment. A signal is received from a non-RFID input device,
causing an RFID reader associated with the non-RFID input device to begin
reading. Non-overlapping time slots are assigned to a plurality of RFID
readers, so that they read only during their respective non-overlapping time
slots.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of controlling radio frequency identification (RFID)
readers, comprising:

receiving a signal from a first non-RFID input device;

commanding a first RFID reader associated with said first non-RFID
input device to begin reading responsive to receiving the signal only if said
first RFID reader has a pre-assigned priority higher than any interfering
RFID reader; and

commanding said first RFID reader to stop reading if a second RFID
reader with a pre-assigned priority higher than aid first RFID reader needs to
read.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 9-12 and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Stilp (US Patent 7,057,512 B2, Jun. 6, 2006).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stilp in view of Choi (US Patent Application Publication
No. 2007/0126554 A1, Jun. 7, 2007) and Sarangapani (US Patent
Application Publication No. 2009/0012882).
Appeal 2011-007234
Application 11/874,554

3
Claims 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stilp in view of Choi.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stilp in view of Sarangapani.

ISSUES
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Stilp does not teach causing RFID
readers to begin reading responsive to an input event, or responsive to a
signal from a non-RFID input device (App. Br. 13).
Appellants further contend that neither Stilp, Choi, nor Sarangapani
teach commanding the RFID reader having a pre-assigned priority higher
than any interfering RFID reader to begin reading responsive to a signal, as
claim 1 recites (App. Br. 15-16).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Stilp teach causing RFID readers to begin reading responsive
to an input event, or responsive to a signal from a non-RFID input device?
2. Does the combination of Stilp, Choi, and Sarangapani teach or
fairly suggest commanding a first RFID reader associated with the first non-
RFID input device to begin reading responsive to receiving the signal only if
the first RFID reader has a pre-assigned priority higher than any interfering
RFID reader?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
Appeal 2011-007234
Application 11/874,554

4
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.’

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”)

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 9-12 AND 15-17
The Examiner finds that Stilp teaches operating a reader to read tags
that are connected to sensors regarding events, such as intrusion (Ans. 19;
Stilp, col. 17, ll. 58-67). We do not agree with the Examiner, however, that
Stilp teaches an RFID reader that begins reading responsive to an input
event, or responsive to a signal from a non-RFID input device, as the claims
variously recite. As Appellants point out, Stilp teaches an intrusion sensor
120 mounted together with an RFID transponder 100 (App. Br. 13). RFID
Appeal 2011-007234
Application 11/874,554

5
readers 200 receive signals from RFID transponders 100, which can in turn
provide information regarding, e.g., the tripping of the intrusion sensor (id.).
We agree with Appellants that the RFID reader cannot know the state of the
intrusion sensor unless already activated to poll, i.e., read, the RFID
transponder (id.).
We therefore find that Stilp does not teach every limitation of the
rejected claims. We will not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims
9-12 and 15-17.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, AND 6
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that neither Stilp, Choi,
nor Sarangapani teach commanding a first RFID reader associated with said
first non-RFID input device to begin reading responsive to receiving the
signal only if said first RFID reader has a pre-assigned priority higher than
any interfering RFID reader, as claim 1 recites (App. Br. 15-17). We agree
with Appellants that Choi’s determination whether interference is below a
predetermined threshold does not involve the assessment of any pre-assigned
priority (App. Br. 15).
We further agree with Appellants that Sarangapani’s choice of the
RFID reader closest to the tag as the highest priority reader also does not
equate to a pre-assigned priority as recited in the claim (App. Br. 16). The
Examiner’s response that the term “pre-assigned” may be interpreted loosely
because Appellants’ Specification does not indicate that the priority is
permanent (Ans. 21, citing Spec. ¶ [0031]) is not persuasive. Appellants’
Specification discloses that “priorities are pre-assigned to RFID readers 116
based on any number of implementation dependent criteria, such as the
relative importance of rooms, the expected traffic through rooms, etc.”
Appeal 2011-007234
Application 11/874,554

6
(Spec. ¶ [0031]). None of Appellants’ exemplary criteria are supportive of
an interpretation that pre-assigned priorities are not permanent. We therefore
accord the term “pre-assigned priority” its ordinary meaning, and construe
the priorities governing the choice of RFID reader as having been decided
upon prior to any device operation, and not being determined on the fly
according to momentary conditions.
We find that none of the references making up the Examiner’s
asserted combination teaches the claim limitation concerning a “pre-
assigned priority.” We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under § 103 and we will not sustain the
rejection.
CLAIMS 13 AND 14
Appellants rely for patentability on the arguments made with respect
to parent claim 11. We have reviewed Choi and Sarangapani, and find that
they do not remedy the deficiencies of Stilp noted above with respect to
claim 11. We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
13 and 14 under § 103 and we will not sustain the rejections.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Stilp does not teach causing RFID readers to begin reading
responsive to an input event, or responsive to a signal from a non-RFID
input device.
2. The combination of Stilp, Choi, and Sarangapani does not teach or
fairly suggest commanding a first RFID reader associated with the first non-
RFID input device to begin reading responsive to receiving the signal only if
Appeal 2011-007234
Application 11/874,554

7
the first RFID reader has a pre-assigned priority higher than any interfering
RFID reader.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9-17 is
reversed.

REVERSED

pgc