Ex Parte Perkins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

14184685 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/184,685 02/19/2014
26379 7590 04/25/2018
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY A VENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew R. Perkins
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.
388938-991208 2519
EXAMINER
MATHEW, MAX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2018 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):
PatentDocketing US-PaloAlto@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW R. PERKINS and
ANTHONY TRUSCOTT
Appeal2017-009587
Application 14/184, 685
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10-12. Claims 3, 6-9, and 13 are cancelled. Final Act.
2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to wireless tracking systems and methods
utilizing near-field communication devices. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the "Awarepoinr
Corporation." See Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009587
Application 14/184,685
1. A system for monitoring interaction data for multiple
users and objects utilizing near-field communication devices in
an indoor healthcare environment through a medium range
wireless communication format and a short range wireless
communication format, the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors located in a facility, each of the
plurality of sensors utilizing a medium range communication
format, the plurality of sensors forming a mesh network;
a plurality of near-field communication devices, each of
the plurality of near-field communication devices transmitting a
beacon signal using a short range communication format
receivable by another near-field communication device when the
near-field communication devices are within a predetermined
distance of each other, and each of the plurality of near-field
communication devices transmitting interaction data using the
medium range communication format to the mesh network; and
an information engine in communication with the mesh
network, the information engine processing the interaction data,
wherein the interaction data comprises at least one of a location
of the interaction, an identification of each of the plurality of
near-field communication devices, and a duration of the
interaction;
wherein the medium range communication format
comprises ZIGBEE, Bluetooth, Low-Power BlueTooth, WiFi or
Low-Power WiFi, Ultra Wide Band ("UWB"), Ultrasound or
Infrared communication system, and the short range
communication format comprises magnetic induction, 9kHz,
<125kHz, 125kHz RFID, 13.56 MHz, 433MHz, 433 MHz RFID,
or 900MHz RFID.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Theimer et al.
Sun et al.
Hannah
US 5,812,865 Sept. 22, 1998
US 2008/0233925 Al Sept. 25, 2008
US 7,688,196 B2 Mar. 30, 2010
2
Appeal2017-009587
Application 14/184,685
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10-122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sun and Hannah. Final Act. 3-10.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sun, Hannah, and Theimer. Final Act. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' naked contentions are unsupported by substantive
argument sufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-11) and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3--4) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend neither Sun nor Hannah "disclose[ s] a plurality of
sensors forming a mesh network and communicating with near-field devices
using a medium communication format and communicating with an
information engine" as recited by the claims. Br. 5. However, other than
these naked assertions, Appellants provide neither reasoning in support of
2 Although appropriately omitted from the body of the rejection, the
Examiner's listing of the rejected claims erroneously includes canceled
claims 3, 6-9, and 13. Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2017-009587
Application 14/184,685
the conclusions nor address the Examiner's specific findings concerning the
prior art and explanation of how it has been applied in teaching or
suggesting the disputed claim limitations. See Final Act. 2-5, Ans. 3--4.
Merely citing a claim limitation and asserting it is not present falls
short of identifying an error in the Examiner's rejection as required on
appeal. "Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to
de nova review of all aspects of a rejection." See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (internal citations omitted).
Arguments must address the Examiner's action. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
("The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant"); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require 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"). "[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require
an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections." In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365---66 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Board will not
advocate for Appellants by scouring the record to see if the Board can
identify some flaw in the Examiner's findings of fact, articulated reasoning,
or legal conclusions. See, e.g., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I
LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("'A skeletal 'argument',
really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim ... "')
(internal citation omitted). Accordingly, Appellants' contentions are
insufficient to persuade us of reversible Examiner error.
4
Appeal2017-009587
Application 14/184,685
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and
10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5