Ex Parte Erhart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

12328620 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

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.
12/328,620 12/04/2008 George William Erhart 4366CSM-163 7237
48500 7590 09/26/2017
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, TONYA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE WILLIAM ERHART, VALENTINE C. MATULA,
DAVID JOSEPH SKIBA, and DAVID S. MOHLER
Appeal 2016-005358
Application 12/328,620
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—14, and 17—19. App. Br. 2.
Appellants state that Claims 1—20 are pending in the application and Claims
14, 15, and 17 stand as allowed. Id. Appellants further state Claims 1—13,
16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but only Claims 1, 2,
4, 5, 7—14, and 17—19 are the subject of present appeal. Id. Claims 16 and
20 are cancelled. App. Br. 5.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005358
Application 12/328,620
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a transport vehicle which carries objects
configured to provide information regarding their states when queried. See
Abstract.
Claims 1,10, and 18 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting and emphasis added:
1. A system comprising:
a vehicle;
a first responsive object capable of responding to a first
inquiry about the state of the first responsive object, wherein the
first inquiry is formatted in accordance with a first protocol;
a proxy for responding to the first inquiry about the state
of the first responsive object with the state of the vehicle when
the first responsive object is (a) within the vehicle and (b)
inoperable to respond to the first inquiry, and
a scheduler for making a reservation based on a response
from the proxy;
wherein the first responsive object comprises a first sensor
that is used by the first responsive object to determine the state
of the first responsive object;
wherein the vehicle comprises a second sensor; and
wherein the proxy intercepts the first inquiry that is
directed to the first responsive object, when the first responsive
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 8, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed May 2, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Mar. 1,
2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed Apr. 3, 2015, “Final Act.”), and the
Specification (filed Sept. 23, 2010, “Spec.”) for their respective details.
2
Appeal 2016-005358
Application 12/328,620
object is within the vehicle, and responds to the first inquiry with
the state of the vehicle as measured by the second sensor.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Heyward, et al., US 2002/0042266 A1 Apr. 11, 2002
Gloekler, et al., US 2005/0247775 Al Nov. 10, 2005
Adamczyk, et al., US 2006/0276960 Al Dec. 7, 2006
The claims stand rejected as follows:3
1. Claims 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.4 Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 1—13, 16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Heyward, Adamczyk, and Gloekler.
Final Act. 5—9.
Allowable Subject Matter.
Claims 14, 15, and 17 stand as allowed. Final Act. 9.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—14, and 17—19
in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider
3 We do not reach the objection to the Specification (see Final Act. 4)
because the Board lacks jurisdiction over objections to claims or the
specification.
4 Claims 16 and 20 are cancelled (App. Br. 3, 5), thus the rejection of those
claims is moot.
3
Appeal 2016-005358
Application 12/328,620
Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
pages 6—9.
Claims 1-13,16, and 18-20: Obviousness over
Heyward, Adamczyk, and Gloekler
Appellants contend the limitation “a proxy for responding to the first
inquiry about the state of the first responsive object with the state of the
vehicle when the first responsive object is (a) within the vehicle and (b)
inoperable to respond to the first inquiry,” as recited in independent Claims
1 and 10 and commensurately recited in independent Claim 18, is not taught
by the cited art. App. Br. 8.
With respect to independent Claims 1,10, and 18, the Examiner finds
Heyward teaches a vehicle comprising a first responsive object capable of
responding to a first inquiry about the state of the first responsive object.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Gloekler supplements Heyward by
teaching the first responsive object comprises a sensor used to determine the
state of the first responsive object. Id., at 6 (citing Gloekler, H 75 and 82).
The Examiner further finds Gloekler teaches that when the first responsive
object is within the vehicle and is inoperable to respond to the first query, a
the proxy intercepts and re-directs the first inquiry to the first responsive
object and then the proxy intercepts and re-directs the response of the first
responsive object. Id. (citing Gloekler, || 74, 79, 82, 84, and 87).
Appellants argue Gloekler discloses radio tags for shipping containers
and when a container is in a “container canyon,” and unable to communicate
with an access portal, it may communicate with the portal by relay through
the radio tags in other containers. App. Br. 7—8. Appellants maintain the
claims recite “a proxy for responding to the first inquiry about the state of
4
Appeal 2016-005358
Application 12/328,620
the first responsive object with the state of the vehicle when the first
responsive object is (a) within the vehicle and (b) inoperable to respond to
the first inquiryId., at 8 (emphasis added). Appellants argue that the
Examiner assumes the claimed “first responsive object” reads on Gloekler’s
radio tag, but that tag is operable to respond to queries, not inoperable, as
claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds the Specification does not recite, nor explicitly
define, the term “inoperable.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Gloekler teaches
a communications link that performs essentially as disclosed by Appellants:
In accordance with the illustrative embodiment, a vehicle in
which one or more responsive objects are present is outfitted with
a proxy that represents the responsive objects. The proxy is
configured such that it is better able than the responsive
objects to receive position-determining signals from one or
more Global Positioning System satellites, or from another
position- determining source. In some embodiments, the proxy
is also configured such that it is better able than the
responsive objects to receive inquiry signals from a querying
device and is therefore able to represent those objects.
Id., (citing Spec., 1 5).
The Examiner finds Gloekler’s tags that are disposed between the out-of-
range tags and the access portal operate essentially as the claimed proxy:
An illustrative embodiment of the present invention is described
in the context of a “container canyon.” Assume that a container
canyon is a two-dimensional (2D) array of containers stacked
five high, and assume that each container has a tag disposed
thereon. Further assume that most tags on the top level of
containers can see an access portal (i.e., transmit to and receive
from an access portal within pre-determined bit error rates);
some tags on the second highest containers can see an access
portal; and most tags on lower levels of containers cannot see an
access portal. In this illustrative embodiment, those tags that
cannot see an access portal require meshing, or bridging,
5
Appeal 2016-005358
Application 12/328,620
assistance to facilitate communications to and from the access
portal. This assistance may also be referred to as relaying. In
other words, tags that are essentially out of communication range
with the access portal require the assistance of one or more tags,
which are disposed between the out-of-range tag and the access
portal, to relay messages between the out-of-range tag and the
access portal.
Id., at 4 (citing Gloekler, 175).
Appellants maintain that an explicit definition for “inoperable” is not
needed because Appellants intend the “ordinary and customary” meaning of
that term. Reply Br. 2. Appellants contend, and we agree, Gloekler’s “out-
of-range” tag is not “inoperable to respond to the first inquiry,” as claimed.
Id. Rather, Appellants correctly argue Gloekler’s tags are operable to
respond to an inquiry from an access portal, but that the portal is out of
range. Appellants correctly argue that Gloekler’s tag is operable such that
when the range of the portal signal is extended via the tags in other
containers, the claimed responsive object does, in fact, respond. Id.
For these reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent Claims 1,10, and 18, and of Claims 2, 4, 5, 7—9,
11—14, 17, and 19, dependent thereon.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—14, and 17—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6