Ex Parte Hannah et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

12200833 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte STEPHEN E. HANNAH, SCOTT J. CARTER and
JESSE M. JAMES
________________

Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM V. SAINDON and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-32 (App. Br. 1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter pertains generally to systems and methods
for tracking the movement and status of non-motorized vehicles, including
shopping carts (Spec. ¶ [0002]). Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A system for controlling shopping carts usage in the
vicinity of a parking lot, the system comprising:
a device that repeatedly transmits a lock command from a
directional antenna, said directional antenna mounted above
ground and angled downward to create a lock zone in which
shopping cart use is restricted, said lock zone encompassing an
exit area associated with the parking lot; and
a plurality of shopping carts, each shopping cart
comprising a brake mechanism, and comprising a radio
frequency (RF) communication circuit that is responsive to the
lock command by activating the brake mechanism.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Moreno US 5,315,290 May 24, 1994
Zeytoonjian US 5,438,319 Aug. 1, 1995
Stokes US 5,512,879 Apr. 30, 1996
Pasillas US 5,630,600 May 20, 1997

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 13-15 and 18 are rejected as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Moreno and Stokes (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

3
2. Claim 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moreno, Stokes and Pasillas (Ans. 5).
3. Claims 4-6, 8, 12, 17 and 19-32 are rejected as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Moreno, Stokes and Zeytoonjian (Ans. 6).

ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 13-15 and 18
over Moreno and Stokes
Independent claim 1 and each of dependent claims 2, 7 and 9 require a
device that “transmits a lock command” from a directional antenna mounted
above ground and angled downward and also a plurality of shopping carts
each having a brake mechanism comprising a radio frequency
communication circuit “responsive to the lock command by activating the
brake mechanism.”
“[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification”
(In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Appellants’
Specification does not expressly define the claim term “lock command” but
the written description makes clear that a lock command (or signal) is
different and distinct from an unlock command (or signal)1. Appellants’

1 See ¶ [0114] and specifically Table 1. See also Background, Paragraph
[0003], “When a shopping cart is pushed over this wire, a sensor in or near
one of the [cart’s] wheels detects an electromagnetic signal generated via the
wire, causing the wheel to lock. To unlock the wheel, an attendant typically
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

4
Specification also teaches partial braking which is “capable of inhibiting the
wheel’s rotation without placing the wheel in a locked state” (Spec. ¶
[0036], see also ¶ [0013]).
The Examiner relies on Moreno for disclosing the claimed limitations
with the exception that the Examiner relies on Stokes for teaching a
directional antenna mounted above ground and angled downward (Ans. 3-4).
The Examiner states that it would have been obvious to combine Stokes and
Moreno “for the purpose of enhancing the reception of the transmitted
signal” (Ans. 4). Appellants contend that Moreno does not “transmit a ‘lock
command’” but instead Moreno does the opposite and transmits “an ‘unlock
command’” (App. Br. 8-9).
Moreno discloses the transmission of a command that permits the cart
to be used or moved but if the cart is moved beyond the transmission range
of the command, the cart is immobilized (Moreno Abstract, 2:8-21, 3:22-25,
4:35-43 and 4:54-61). Moreno, in effect, teaches the transmission of an
“unlock command” which allows the cart to be used so long as the cart
remains within transmission range. The Examiner states that Moreno
“transmits a lock command” (Ans. 3) finding that “Moreno discloses the cart
is being locked and unlocked in response to the signal transmitted” and that
this “is construed as a lock and unlocks commands” (Ans. 12).
We find Appellants’ arguments to the contrary to be persuasive. It is
only when the cart no longer receives the unlock command, and receives no

uses a handheld remote control to send an unlock signal to the wheel.” See
also Paragraph [0038] “The access points (APs) are also capable of
generating and/or relaying commands to the cart transceivers (CTs),
including lock and unlock commands that are sent to specific shopping
carts.” See also Paragraph [0050] “sending unlock commands to a nest 41
of carts 30 being retrieved.”
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

5
controlling command, that locking of the cart occurs (Moreno 4:35-43). The
absence of a lock command is not the same as the transmission of a lock
command. In particular, it is not consistent with the way the term “lock
command” is used in the Specification to consider Moreno’s “unlock
command” to be a “lock command” (see In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404
(CCPA 1969) (“claims yet unpatented are to be given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”). While
Moreno’s transmitted command does determine whether the lock is to be
engaged, the Specification consistently indicates that “transmit[ting] a lock
command” means that a command that results in wheel locking is
transmitted (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0114] and [0036]). In Moreno, the only
transmitted command is a command that results in unlocking; locking is the
result of the absence of a transmitted command (Moreno 4:35-43). The
Examiner also has not articulated a reason why it would have been obvious
for Moreno to transmit a lock command instead of the disclosed unlock
command. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. We reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 9.
Independent claim 10 is separately argued (App. Br. 10) and requires
a device that transmits “a first command” and a communication circuit that
responds to this first command “by activating the brake mechanism.” The
Examiner relies on “the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1” (Ans.
5, see also 15-16). Appellants also rely on arguments discussed above and
further contend that Moreno’s command “is not a command to which the
vehicles respond ‘by activating the brake mechanism’ as claimed” and
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

6
further that “the absence of a signal cannot be construed as a ‘command’”
(App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 5-6, 7).
We understand Appellants’ latter contention to be with respect to
Moreno’s lack of a “lock command” discussed supra. Nevertheless, Moreno
clearly discloses the transmission of a signal (Moreno 3:12-14) and Moreno
clearly discusses the effect this signal has on the operation of the brake
mechanism (Moreno 4:35-61). Moreno teaches that the cart’s brake
mechanism is in an activated state (unlocked) when it receives the
transmitted signal (Moreno 4:54-61). Appellants do not indicate how
Moreno’s transmitted signal fails to activate the brake mechanism.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claim 11, which depends from claim 10, is separately argued (App.
Br. 10) and further requires that the antenna of claim 10 be “a directional
antenna.” The Examiner relies on “the same art and rationale used to reject
claim 1” (Ans. 5, see also 16-17). Appellants also rely on arguments
previously presented with respect to claim 10 (and hence to claim 1) and
further state that “nothing in the references suggests replacing” Moreno’s
antenna with Stokes’ antenna (App. Br. 10-11).
Regarding the latter contention, the Supreme Court held that the
references themselves need not provide the suggestion as Appellants assert,
instead, we are instructed that “it can be important to identify a reason that
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
elements as the new invention does” and here, the Examiner has provided
such a reason (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Ans.
4). Accordingly, the lack of a suggestion found in the references, as asserted
by Appellants, is not dispositive.
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

7
Regarding Appellants’ antenna arguments made with respect to claim
1, Appellants acknowledge that “Stokes may disclose the use of a direction
antenna 41,” however, Stokes “does not teach the use of such an antenna to
transmit a command” because Stokes’ antenna “is used only to receive, and
not transmit, signals” (App. Br. 9). Appellants’ contention is not persuasive
because the Examiner relies on Stokes, not for teaching a directional antenna
that transmits but instead for teaching a “directional antenna mounted above
ground and angled downward” as claimed (Ans. 4, 16-17). Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 13 and 14
and instead state that these claims “depend from, and stand or fall with,
claim 10” (App. Br. 11). As we sustain the rejection of claim 10, we
likewise sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14.
Independent method claim 15 is separately argued (App. Br. 11) and
requires that “each” of a plurality of carts have communication circuitry
“responsive to first and second commands transmitted over a wireless link.”
Again, the Examiner relies on “the same art and rationale used to reject
claim 1” and further finds that “by having [Moreno’s] controller in the
shopping cart activating and deactivating the shopping cart wheels in
response to the signal received from the store[, this] is construed as
activating and deactivating the shopping cart wheel based on first and
second command[s]” (Ans. 5, 17-18). Appellants contend that the Examiner
“improperly construes the claim language at issue” by relying on Moreno’s
“single encoded signal” as constituting the claimed “first and second
commands” (Reply Br. 10, see also App. Br. 11). We find Appellants’
arguments to the contrary to be persuasive. We are not persuaded that
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

8
Moreno’s single “unlock command” and the absence of a command as
together constituting the claimed “first and second commands transmitted
over a wireless link.” We are also not informed by the Examiner of how
Moreno teaches that each cart’s circuitry is capable of responding to both
signals transmitted over a wireless link2. Accordingly, and based on the
record presented, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
Separately argued claim 18 (App. Br. 12) depends from claim 15 and
further requires that the above-ground antenna of claim 15 be “a directional
antenna.” While we have previously addressed a similar antenna claim
limitation with respect to claim 11 and our analysis of that matter has not
changed, we nevertheless reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 due
to this claim being dependent on claim 15 which has been reversed supra.

The Rejection of Claim 3 and 16
over Moreno, Stokes and Pasillas
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1 and claim 16 depends
from independent claim 15. The rejection of both independent claims has
been reversed supra and the Examiner does not indicate how Pasillas
overcomes the deficiencies of Moreno and Stokes noted above with respect
to parent claims 1 and 15. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 3
and 16.

The Rejection of Claims 4-6, 8, 12, 17 and 19-32
over Moreno, Stokes and Zeytoonjian

2 Moreno’s Figure 1 discloses two antennas that transmit signals “coded for
each store and its respective carts” such that the carts associated with a
particular store will only operate within that store’s transmission range
(Moreno 3:11-28).
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

9
Claims 4-6, 8 and 24-29 depend, directly or indirectly, from
independent claim 1. The Examiner does not explain how the additional
reference to Zeytoonjian overcomes the deficiencies of Moreno and Stokes
noted supra and accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 4-6, 8 and
24-29.
Claim 12, which depends from independent claim 10, is separately
argued (App. Br. 14) and further requires “a second antenna from which a
second command is repeatedly transmitted” and further that the second
antenna is “mounted to create a second zone adjacent to the first zone.” The
Examiner states that “claim 12 is rejected using the same art and rationale
used to reject claim 4” which relies on Zeytoonjian for teaching “first and
second antennas wherein each antenna covers a different area or zone” (Ans.
7, 8). Appellants generally contend that the cited art does not teach the
additional limitations recited (App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 14-15).
Appellants do not dispute Zeytoonjian’s specific disclosure of first
and second spaced antennas transmitting first and second signals at different
frequencies (Zeytoonjian Abstract and 6:19-35). Nor do Appellants dispute
Moreno’s Figure 1 which discloses the use of two antennas each generating
a signal “coded for each store and its respective carts” such that store A’s
carts remain operable in store A’s transmission range 17 while store B’s
carts remain operable in store B’s transmission range 19 (Moreno 3:11-28).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions and we do
not find fault with the Examiner’s analysis that the cited combination
discloses the claimed limitations. We sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Claims 17 and 19-23 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent
claim 15. The Examiner does not explain how the additional reference to
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

10
Zeytoonjian overcomes the deficiencies noted supra and accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claims 17 and 19-23.
Dependent claims 30 and 31 are argued together (App. Br. 18) and we
select claim 30 for review with claim 31 standing or falling with claim 30.
Claim 30 depends from independent system claim 10 and further requires
that each vehicle “is operative to generate received signal strength
measurements based on transmissions received from said device.” The
Examiner relies on Zeytoonjian for disclosing this additional limitation
(Ans. 10 referencing Zeytoonjian 1:42-60). The Examiner also states that
“‘operative’ clauses[] are essentially method limitations or statements or
intended or desired use. Thus, these claims as well as other statements of
intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure
over that of the reference” (Ans. 10). Appellants contend that “although
Zeytoonjian may disclose the generation of received signal strength
measurements, nothing in the references suggests incorporating such
measurements into Moreno’s system” (App. Br. 19, see also Reply Br. 20).
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Appellants do not dispute
the received signal strength (RSSI) teachings of Zeytoonjian and further, the
Examiner has provided a reason to combine Zeytoonjian with Moreno and
Stokes via the Examiner’s analysis of claim 213 . Further, Appellants
contend that an “operative” clause “does not describe an intended use of the

3 The Examiner states that “regarding claims 30 and 31, see response to
claim 25 argument” (Ans. 26). Regarding the Examiner’s response to
claim 25, the Examiner states “regarding claim 25, see at least response to
claim 21 argument” (Ans. 25). Under the Examiner’s heading rejecting
claim 21, the Examiner states a reason to combine Zeytoonjian with Moreno
and Stokes as being “for the purpose of enhancing the reception of the
signal” (Ans. 7). This reason to combine is applicable here.
Appeal 2010-004817
Application 12/200,833

11
recited shopping carts, but rather describes functionality that is embodied in
circuitry of the shopping carts” (App. Br. 7). However, as stated by the
Examiner, claims directed to an apparatus “must be distinguished from the
prior art in terms of structure rather than function” (Ans. 11). Appellants do
not offer a structural distinction and based on the record presented, we are
not persuaded of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 30 and 31.
Claim 32 depends from claim 10 and is separately argued (App. Br.
19). Claim 32 requires received signal strength (RSSI) measurements be
used “to adjust a wakeup interval used for switching between said active and
inactive states.” We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s finding that
Moreno teaches “wake up switching between active and inactive is as soon
as the cart is dragged back to the boundary” (Ans. 9-10 referencing Moreno
4:31-61). The Examiner does not indicate how Zeytoonjian’s RSSI
disclosure is capable of providing this functional limitation directed to
adjusting a wakeup interval. Accordingly, and based on the record
presented, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 10-14, 30 and 31 are affirmed.
The rejections of claims 1-9, 15-29 and 32 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
mls