Ex Parte CalvareseDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201613298026 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/298,026 11/16/2011 Russell E. Calvarese 126568 7590 06/24/2016 Zebra Technologies Corporation 3 Overlook Point Lincolnshire, IL 60069 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. CM14897 1867 EXAMINER MCCORMACK, THOMAS S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/24/2016 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): docketing@zebra.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RUSSELL E. CALV ARESE Appeal2015-001648 Application 13/298,026 Technology Center 2600 Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. "1"1 ,1 "1 "1 ,..,,,-TT#'I~ 1\1,..,,Al/'-r'" ,"1 T"""i • ., Appeuant' appeals unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s rejection of claims 1-17, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Symbol Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Motorola Solutions, Inc. Br. 3. Appeal2015-001648 Application 13/298,026 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's present application relates to a method for adapting RFID reader power levels. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows: 1. A method for adapting a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader power level, the method comprising: determining if a first RFID reader can read an RFID tag; determining if a second RFID reader can read that same RFID tag; and determining that there are no other tags that can only be read by one of the first and second RFID readers at its present power level, wherein if all determining steps are satisfied, reducing a power level of the RFID reader having the most depleted power source out of the first and second RFID readers, such that the RFID reader having the most depleted po,i:1er source can no longer read the RFID tag. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shafer (US 2011/0068906 Al; Mar. 24, 2011), Shao (US 2010/0110995 Al; May 6, 2010), and Hunt (US 2009/0051495 Al; Feb. 26, 2009). Ans. 2-10. Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shafer, Shao, Hunt, and Toda (US 2009/0224045 Al; Sept.10,2009). Ans.10-11. 2 Appeal2015-001648 Application 13/298,026 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Independent claims Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Shafer, Shao, and Hunt teaches or suggests the three determining steps. Br. 9-10. However, the Examiner only relies upon Shafer for the first and second determining steps and only relies upon Hunt for the third determining step. Final Act. 2-3. Accordingly, we will address Appellant's arguments directed to the references relied upon by the Examiner. Appellant argues the Examiner's reliance on Shafer is misplaced because Shafer teaches WiFi devices, not RFID devices. See Br. 8. We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Shafer teaches tags and ping nodes that may be WiFi devices or RFID devices. Ans. 11 (citing Shafer ,-i 14). Specifically, Shafer teaches "[ o ]ther examples of external devices that can send the monitoring device the indication of a triggering event include, e.g., an RFID device .... " Shafer ,-i 14. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Shafer teaches RFID devices. 3 Appeal2015-001648 Application 13/298,026 Appellant next argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination teaches or suggests "determining if a first RFID reader can read an RFID tag" and "determining if a second RFID reader can read that same RFID tag" because Shafer teaches determining whether a tag receives a signal from an RFID reader, not whether an RFID reader receives a signal from a tag. Br. 9-10. We disagree. As found by the Examiner, Shafer teaches a tag that responds to signals of adequate strength from ping nodes. Ans. 16 (citing Shafer ,-i 31 ). The tag responds when the signal is above a strength threshold, but does not respond when the signal is below the threshold. Id. We agree with the Examiner's finding that this disclosure teaches or suggests that the system determines whether the ping node can read the tag by determining whether the ping node receives a return signal from the tag. See id. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Shafer teaches the first and second "determining" steps. ,,L\ .. ppellant :!:hrther argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination teaches or suggests "determining that there are no other tags that can only be read by one of the first and second RFID readers at its present power level" because Hunt describes calibration tags within the coverage of a reader, not "normal" RFID tags. Br. 10. We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Hunt's calibration tags are RFID tags. Ans. 12, Final Act. 3 (citing Hunt ,-i 31 ). The Examiner notes that Hunt does not use the phrase "special calibration tag" and simply refers to its tags as "RFID tags." Ans. 12. Hunt teaches calibrating RFID readers using RFID tags to eliminate coverage area overlap between RFID readers. Hunt ,-i 31. This calibration process involves determining that there are no other tags 4 Appeal2015-001648 Application 13/298,026 that can be read by only one of the RFID readers being calibrated. Id. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Dependent claims Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 8, and 14. See Br. 11. However, Appellant's argument is conclusory, merely reciting the claim limitation, the teachings of Shafer, and stating that the two are not the same. Id. As stated by the Federal Circuit, Rule 41.37 "require[ s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art." In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 8, and 14. Appellant's arguments for claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 17 are similarly conclusory. See Br. 11-12. ,,L\ .. ccordingly, \Ve are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues the rejections of claims 7 and 13 based on the same reasons presented for claim 1. See Br. 11. We, therefore, sustain the rejections of claims 7 and 13. On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellant also has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-6, 8- 12, and 14-17. 5 Appeal2015-001648 Application 13/298,026 DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation