Ex Parte Krug et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12632501 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/632,501 12/07/2009
60476 7590 09/02/2016
PA TENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William P. Krug
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.
09-0791 (24691-280) 3921
EXAMINER
WILSON, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM P. KRUG,
SUDHAKAR S. SHETTY, and
DAVID T. KIRKLAND 1
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-28, dated Sept. 12, 2013 ("Non-Final
Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
Introduction
According to Appellants, "[t]he field of the invention relates generally
to the tracking and inventory of items on an aircraft, and more specifically,
to methods and systems for real time RFID locating onboard an aircraft."
(Spec. ii 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
representative:
1. An aircraft communications and item tracking system
compnsmg:
an RFID reader located at a first fixed location within an
aircraft;
a communications device located at a second fixed
location within the aircraft;
and
a distributed antenna system coupled to said RFID reader
and said communications device, said distributed antenna system
comprising[:]
a wireless distribution system; and
a plurality of individual transmission and reception
points separately connected to the wireless distribution system,
wherein the plurality of individual transmission and reception
points separately connected to said wireless distribution system
are not collectively incorporated into a single cable; and
wherein the wireless distribution system is separate
from said RFID reader, said communications device, and each of
said plurality of individual transmission and reception points,
wherein communications between said plurality of individual
transmission and reception points and each of said RFID reader
and said communication device are passed through said wireless
distribution system, said plurality of transmission and reception
points disbursed about the aircraft such that a plurality of passive
2
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
RFID tags within the aircraft may be activated by signals output
by at least one of said plurality of transmission points, said
distributed antenna system operable for transmission and
reception of signals associated with said RFID reader and the
passive RFID tags, said distributed antenna system further
operable for transmission and reception of signals associated
with said communications device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Harman
Imajo
Olin et al.
Kodukula et al.
Sauer et al.
Risheq et al.
us 5,534,869
US 6,337,754 Bl
US 2006/0038077 Al
US 200710001809 A 1
US 2007 /0286599 Al
US 8,005,513 B2
REJECTIONS
July 9, 1996
Jan. 8,2002
Feb.23,2006
Jan.4,2007
Dec. 13, 2007
Aug. 23, 2011
Claims 9 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. (Non-Final
Act. 2-3.)
Claims 9 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second
paragraph as being indefinite. (Non-Final Act. 3--4.)
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 15, 17-21, 23, 24, and27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sauer and Kodukula. (Non-
Final Act. 4--9.)
Claims 3-5, 12, 13, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sauer, Kodukula, and Olin. (Non-Final
Act. 10-13.)
3
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sauer, Kodukula, and Imajo. (Non-Final Act. 13-14.)
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sauer, Kodukula, and Risheq. (Non-Final Act. 14--15.)
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sauer, Kodukula, and Harman. (Non-Final Act. 15.)
ISSUE
Based on Appellants' arguments, the sole issue presented on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in finding Sauer teaches or suggests "a plurality
of individual transmission and reception points separately connected to the
wireless distribution system, wherein the plurality of individual transmission
and reception points separately connected to said wireless distribution
system are not collectively incorporated into a single cable," as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 10
and 15.
ANALYSIS
35U.S.C.§112-Claims 9 and 25
Appellants have not addressed the Examiner's rejections of claims 9
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. (See App. Br. 9
(presenting only§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1-28 as grounds to be
reviewed).) Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's§ 112
rejections of claims 9 and 25. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37( c )(1 )(iv) ("Each
ground of rejection contested by appellant must be argued ... ") and Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 8th ed., Rev. 9, Aug.
2012 ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant's brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the
4
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
Board.").
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)-Claims 1-28
We have reviewed the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections in light of
Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants' conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Non-Final Act. 4--16) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2--4.)
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight
the following for emphasis. 2
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because Sauer
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. (App. Br. 10-11.)
Referring to Figure 8 of Sauer, the Examiner finds "transponder 30
corresponds to a transmission and reception point, and a plurality of
transmission/reception points could be each transmission/reception point on
the end of each DAS 220 .... " (Non-Final Act. 5.) Appellants argue this
teaching is deficient because:
[A]ssuming that each transponder 30 in Sauer is a transmission
and reception point and that converter array unit 410 and
multiplexer unit 414 in Sauer is a wireless distribution system as
alleged by the Examiner, the reception points 30 of Sauer are
incorporated into a single cable (i.e., a fiber cable 220). That is,
reception points 30 are connected to each other in series along a
fiber cable.
(App. Br. 10.) In other words, Appellants argue Sauer shows transmission
2 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
and reception points only in a single cable, as opposed to "not collectively
incorporated into a single cable," as recited in claim 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which are premised
on a misreading of Sauer. As the Examiner finds, and we agree:
[T]ransponder (30) corresponds to a transmission and reception
point, and ... the plurality of transmission and reception points
correspond to each transmission and reception point (30) at the
end of each cable (220) . . . . In other words, each of the
transmission and reception points (30) located at the end of their
respective cable (220), correspond to the plurality of
transmission and reception points separately connected to the
wireless distribution system that are not collectively
incorporated into a single cable.
(Ans. 2-3; see also Non-Final Act. 5 (emphases added).) To illustrate this
point in the Answer, the Examiner annotated Figure 8 of Sauer by circling
transponders at the end of each cable and adding arrows. (See Ans. 3.) We
have recreated this annotated Figure 8 below for legibility:
-------4~4
/ __ z.n~ /.A~1) -~~
: / / --·<:>1'8
FIG. 8 (Annotated)
"FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of an example embodiment of an optical-
fiber-based picocellular system that includes a central head-end station and
6
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
multiple optical fiber cables." (Sauer if 19.) Fig. 8 has been annotated.
Appellants do not address the foregoing Examiner findings. Instead,
Appellants direct their arguments to the following statement made by the
Examiner in the Response to Arguments portion of the Non-Final Action:
"The claim can also be interpreted as both of the separate transmission/
reception points 30 in Figure 6 are not collectively incorporated into a single
uplink/downlink optical fiber cable 36D/36U." (Non-Final Act. 16; App.
Br. 11; Reply Br. 2. 3) In other words, the Examiner notes, in addition to
finding Sauer discloses a plurality of transponders 30 each in separate cables
220, that Sauer also discloses a plurality of transponders 30 separately
connected via separate optical fiber cables 36D/36U, as shown in Figure 6.
(Non-Final Act. 16.) Appellants argue this is in error because
"[t]ransponders 30 and each of the corresponding 36U and 36D are all
collectively incorporated into a single cable (i.e., fiber cable 220) .... "
(App. Br. 11.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As the Examiner
correctly notes, the statement challenged by Appellants does not form the
basis of the Examiner's rejection. (Ans. 4.) Further, as discussed above, we
agree that the Examiner's findings underlying the rejection are supported by
the teachings of Sauer. As for the additional reference cited in support of the
rejection of claim 1 (Kodukula), Appellants do not present separate
arguments, but argue only "Kodukula does not remedy the deficiencies of
Sauer in describing or rendering obvious the features recited in Claim 1."
(App. Br. 11.)
3 Appellants' Reply Brief does not include page numbers; we reference
pages as if they had been properly numbered.
7
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, or of
independent claims 10 and 15, which are not argued separately. (See App.
Br. 11-12.)
As for the dependent claims, Appellants merely refer to the arguments
presented for claim 1 and contend the additionally cited references
(Kodukula, Olin, Risheq, Imajo, and Harman) do not remedy the
deficiencies alleged for claim 1 in the teachings of Sauer. (See App. Br. 12-
15.) In so doing, Appellants do not separately argue the dependent claims
with particularity. We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish
for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, for the
reasons stated above regarding claim 1, we also sustain the rejections of the
dependent claims over the various combinations of Sauer, Kodukula, Olin,
Risheq, Imajo, and Harman cited by the Examiner. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
8
Appeal2015-001809
Application 12/632,501
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-28 are
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9