Ex Parte Muehl et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

10286391 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GORDON MUEHL, KLAUS IRLE, WALTER G.
KIENLE, and KNUT HEUSERMANN
____________________

Appeal 2011-003102
Application 10/286,391
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003102
Application 10/286,391

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4, 10-11, 24-27, 31-32, and 34-381. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE2.
The claims are directed to automated structuring (Title). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for automated structuring of data
representing a system of tangible items, comprising:
receiving, at a data processing system, first item
information describing a first tangible item in the system;
receiving, at the data processing system, first item
position information describing a position of the first item;
receiving, at the data processing system, second item
information describing a second tangible item of the system;
receiving, at the data processing system, second item
position information describing a position of the second item;
using the data processing system to automatically
characterize a component/subcomponent relationship between
the first item and the second item based at least in part upon the
first item position information and the second item position
information, wherein characterizing the
component/subcomponent relationship comprises the data
processing system identifying a third item and a fourth item
having a previously characterized component/subcomponent
relationship; and
using the data processing system to associate the first
item information and the second item information to reflect the
component/subcomponent relationship between the first item
and the second item, wherein associating the first item

1 Claims 29-30 are withdrawn (App. Br. 1).
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 6, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 22,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Exam’r’s Ans.,” mailed July 22, 2010).
Appeal 2011-003102
Application 10/286,391

3
information and the second item information comprises the data
processing system copying an association between third item
information and fourth item information that reflects the
previously characterized component/subcomponent relationship
to associate the first item information and the second item
information, wherein the associating of the first item
information and the second item information transforms a
collection of data to reflect the component/subcomponent
relationship between the first item and the second item.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Woolley
Brady
US 5,774,876
US 6,249,227 B1
Jun. 30, 1998
Jun. 19, 2001

REJECTION
Claims 1-4, 10-11, 24-27, 31-32, and 34-38 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woolley in view of Brady.

OPINION
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Woolley and Brady renders obvious independent claims 1, 27, and 31
(App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 1-4). Independent claim 1 recites
using the data processing system to associate the first
item information and the second item information to reflect the
component/subcomponent relationship between the first item
and the second item, wherein associating the first item
information and the second item information comprises the data
processing system copying an association between third item
information and fourth item information that reflects the
Appeal 2011-003102
Application 10/286,391

4
previously characterized component/subcomponent relationship
to associate the first item information and the second item
information.
Independent claims 27 and 31 recite similar aspects.
The Examiner admits that Woolley does not disclose the
aforementioned aspect of independent claim 1 (Exam’r’s Ans. 5). The
Examiner then asserts that Brady discloses the aforementioned aspects, in
particular, the component/subcomponent relationship and the previous
third/fourth item relationship from which the first/second item relationship is
extrapolated (Exam’r’s Ans. 6-7, 16-19). While the portions of Brady cited
by the Examiner disclose many relationships between various components in
a radio frequency identification (RFID) system, the Examiner has not
adequately mapped the components of Brady to the claims such that
Appellants are sufficiently on notice as to exactly which RFID components
correspond to “an association between third item information and fourth
item information that reflects the previously characterized
component/subcomponent relationship to associate the first item information
and the second item information,” as recited in independent claim 1.
For example, the Examiner cites various portions of Brady that recite
that RFID transponder 424/516 includes information about electronic
components 412/522 of device 400/518, and asserts that they correspond to
the third and fourth items of independent claim 1 (col. 10, ll. 3-16; col. 11, ll.
2-6; col. 13, ll. 61-67; Exam’r’s Ans. 7, 17). However, the Examiner has not
shown which of RFID transponder 424/516, electronic components 412/522,
and device 400/518 correspond to the recited third and fourth items, how
they constitute the recited component/subcomponent relationship, and in
what manner this relationship was previously characterized, as recited in
Appeal 2011-003102
Application 10/286,391

5
independent claim 1. Without such explanation, the Examiner has not met
the initial burden of setting forth a proper case of prima facie obviousness
with respect to the aforementioned aspect of independent claim 1, and thus
we will not sustain this rejection. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (during examination, the examiner bears the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness).
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of
independent claims 27 and 31, or any claims dependent from independent
claims 1, 27, and 31.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 10-11, 24-27, 31-32, and 34-
38 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

hh