Ex Parte Richardson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12169742 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
12/169,742 07/09/2008 Tom Richardson 054054/338051 9853
133839 7590 03/29/2017
'Zebra Teehnnlnaies; Pnmnratinn
EXAMINER
(Legacy)
3 Overlook Point
WILSON, BRIAN P
Lincolnshire, IL 60069 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
ip_legal @ zebra, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOM RICHARDSON,
SANTIAGO ROMERO, DAVID S. WISHERD, and MICHAEL A. WOHL
Appeal 2016-0040991
Application 12/169,742
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—15, 17—21, and 23—32, which are all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Zebra Enterprise
Solutions Corporation. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention “generally relate[s] to systems and methods of
locating and/or tracking assets, and more particularly, relates to systems and
methods of locating and/or tracking assets selectively using one or more of a
plurality of geo-spatial positioning systems, including real-time locating
system (RTLS) satellite based navigation system . . . techniques or the like.”
(July 9, 2008 Specification (“Spec.”) p. 1,11. 10-15.) Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below (with minor reformatting):
1. An apparatus for tracking an asset within a geographic
area, the apparatus comprising:
a controller configured to control operation of one or more
wireless locating units of one or more geo-spatial
positioning systems, the one or more locating units being
positionable on an object configured to move or facilitate
movement of the asset, the one or more geo-spatial
positioning systems being configured to locate a
respective one or more locating units, and thereby the
asset, within the geographic area;
wherein the controller is further configured to:
collect, from the one or more locating units,
multiple instances of location data based on geo-spatial
positioning system signals;
collect, from one or more sensors positionable on
the object, multiple instances of sensor data indicating
respective locations of the one or more locating units, each
instance of sensor data associated with a given locating
unit being collected during a respective collection period;
compile the multiple instances of sensor data and
the multiple instances of location data based on geo-spatial
positioning system signals into one or more data packets;
2
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
direct transmission of the one or more data packets
to a host for determining a location of the asset based at
least partially on the sensor data via one of the locating
units or another wireless transmitter, and in a manner that
accounts for a wireless link between the respective
locating unit or other wireless transmitter and the host.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Tran
Tennison et al.
(“Tennison”)
Coffee et al.
(“Coffee”)
Zimmerman et al.
(“Zimmerman”)
US 2002/0069220 Al June 6, 2002
US 6,496,777 B2 Dec. 17, 2002
US 2006/0129691 Al June 15, 2006
US 7,693,659 B2 Apr. 6, 2010
Claims 1, 2, 6—13, 21, 24—27, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coffee. (See Final Office Action
(mailed Nov. 6, 2014) (“Final Act.”) 2—7.)
Claims 5 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffee in view of Tran. (See Final Act. 7—8.)
Claims 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Coffee in view of Zimmerman. (See Final
Act. 8-12.)
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffee, in view of Zimmerman, and further in view of
Tran. (See Final Act. 13.)
3
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
Claims 28, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Coffee in view of Tennison. (See Final Act. 13—
14.)
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coffee, in view of Zimmerman, and further in view of
Tennison. (See Final Act. 14—15.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—15, 17—21, and 23—32. We adopt
as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2—
13.) However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Claim 1
With respect to independent claim l,2 the Examiner finds Coffee
teaches or suggests “one or more locating units being positionable on an
object” and “one or more sensors positionable on the object.” (Final Act. 2—
3.) Appellants contend that “Coffee does not disclose, teach, or suggest
both wireless locating units associated with one or more geo-spatial
positioning systems (e.g., real time location system locating units) and
sensors (e.g., GPS sensors). . . .” (Br. 9—14.) According to Appellants,
2 Claim 21 contains similar limitations at issue and Appellants argue claim
21 together with claim 1. (Br. 8—14.)
4
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
“Coffee only discloses a tracker having a location determining mechanism
of which GPS is one example and does not disclose, teach, or suggest
separate wireless locating units and sensors as recited in the pending
claims.” (Br. 11.) In other words, Appellants contend that “Coffee’s single
tracker [] cannot be interpreted as two separate devices, wireless locating
units providing location data and sensors providing sensor data indicating
respective locations of the one or more wireless locating units.” (Br. 13,
emphasis altered.) Figure 9A of Coffee is reproduced below.
F I G. 9A
Figure 9A depicts “a simplified block diagram of a fixed mounted wireless
tracking device as it interacts with the gateway, display, and vehicle
mounted sensors.” (Coffee 128.) The Examiner explains that the “one or
more wireless locating units” of claim 1 correspond to “the wireless modem
in Figure 9A.” (Ans. 5.) The Examiner further explains that the GPS sensor
and other sensors, “such as dead reckoning inputs from vehicle speed
5
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
sensors,” correspond to the “one or more sensors” of claim 1. (Ans. 2—9.)
According to the Examiner, and as discussed in Coffee, inputs from other
sensors are needed due to the “drawback of GPS systems [] when satellites
are obscured by foliage or other structures.” (Ans. 2; Coffee 7 (“A
second drawback of GPS is the lack of signal availability when the satellites
are obscured by foliage or structures. This requires GPS to be augmented by
other sensors, such as dead reckoning inputs from a vehicle speed sensor, or
from triangulation techniques from wireless network signals.”), 344
(“Sensors mounted on the vehicle (x2) are used to enhance navigation
performance . . ., include[ing,] connections to the vehicle speed sensor so
that accurate speed and distance can be determined, particularly when GPS
is not available. Heading sensors can also . . . provide a full dead reckoning
capability!)]”).) Appellants do not explain how the Examiner’s specific
findings are wrong and have not persuaded us of Examiner error.
Claim 7
Claim 7 further recites “wherein the controller is configured to
control operation of the one or more wireless locating units of one or more
geo-spatial positioning systems configured to locate the asset within the
geographic area in response to an event affecting location of the asset."
(Emphasis added.) Appellants contend:
Coffee does not disclose, teach, or suggest that the controller is
configured to control operation of the “tracker” in response to an
event affecting location of the asset. Instead, Coffee merely
discloses the tracker reporting data periodically and in response
to events that are reported through the messaging application,
and events that are reported through the messaging application
are not events “affecting location of the asset.”
6
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
(Br. 15.) We have reviewed the portions of Coffee cited by the Examiner
and agree with the Examiner’s finding that Coffee teaches or suggests “that
the one or more wireless locating units [(under the control of a controller)]
can be used to transmit/report event data upon reaching a location (e.g., a
package delivery vehicle carrying an asset arrives at its location, or makes an
unauthorized stop).” (Ans. 9.) For example, Coffee teaches that the vehicle
“automatically report[s] when the vehicle (such as ready-mix concrete truck)
has arrived at and left a job site.” (Coffee ^fl[ 100, 570 (“Work sites are areas
defined by rectangles of latitude and longitude. They [include] places where
work is to be performed.”).)
Claim 8
Claim 8 further recites “wherein the controller is configured to detect
the event or verily the detected event, or communicate with a processor
configured to detect the event or verify the detected event, based on a route
traversed by the object over a period of time . . . .” The Examiner finds that
Coffee teaches or suggest this limitation because the system in Coffee
“detects unscheduled stops and transmit[s the] location of that stop [as] each
vehicle is assigned a project order (i.e., route) comprising one or more work
orders (i.e., scheduled stops)).” (Final Act. 5.) Appellants contend that
Coffee “merely discloses that tracker data may be reported periodically or in
response to certain events” and “[providing location data periodically or as
required and using the data to provide route information to users does not
disclose, teach, or suggest detecting an event or verifying the detected event
based on a route traversed by the object over a period of time.” (Br. 16,
emphasis added.) We agree with the Examiner that “[a]ll that is required by
the claim is for the controller to detect [or to verily] the event based upon a
7
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
route traversed/past locations, the route/past locations determinable by the
location data from the one or more wireless locating units.” (Ans. 9—10.)
We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Coffee teaches or
suggests “the object can detect the event when GPS coverage is unavailable
(e.g., determine it has entered a work site or made an unauthorized stop), and
this can be based upon a route traversed over time (i.e., Coffee determines it
is off route at an unauthorized stop).” (Ans. 9.) Appellants do not reply to
the Examiner’s specific findings and have not persuaded us of Examiner
error.
Claim 10
Claim 10 further recites “wherein the controller is configured to
determine, or communicate with a processor configured to determine, a
bearing of the asset when the event occurs based on a route traversed by the
object over a period of time, the route being determinable based on location
data . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Appellants contend that “Coffee merely
disclose[s] providing location data periodically and in response to the
detection of certain events [but] fails to disclose, teach, or suggest
determining the bearing of the asset when the event occurs based on a route
traversed by the object over a period of time.” (Br. 17.) The Examiner finds
that “[b]ased on the object’s route, a bearing of the object/asset will be
determined when the event occurs (e.g., when a package delivery truck
deviates from its route.” (Ans. 10; Final Act. 6.) Appellants do not explain
why the Examiner’s finding is wrong and we are not persuaded of Examiner
error.
8
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
Claim 11
Claim 11 further recites “wherein a route traversed by the object over
a period of time is determinable based on the location data from the one or
more geo-spatial positioning systems, the controller being configured to
control operation of the one or more locating units to set or adjust a
granularity of the route.” (Emphasis added.) The Examiner finds Coffee
teaches that “a work order (stop) can be added to a project order (route) at
any time [thereby] the granularity of the route can be adjusted by adding an
additional stop/pickup between two stops.” (Final Act. 6.) Appellants
contend that paragraph “[0588] of Coffee merely discloses the user process
of creating a work order, including identifying attributes of the work order
[and paragraph [0592] of Coffee merely discloses that a project order may
go through various states, that a project order may be cancelled at any time,
and that a work order can be added to an active project order at any time.”
(Br. 17—18.) Appellants, however, do not address the Examiner’s finding
that “the granularity of the route can be adjusted by adding an additional
stop/pickup between two stops.” (Final Act. 6; Ans. 10—11 (“the dispatcher
can add/delete any work order for the object/asset, thus setting or adjusting
the granularity of their route (e.g., increasing/decreasing the amount of stops
for a cement truck, etc.).”).) Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
12. The apparatus according to Claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to control operation
of a plurality of wireless locating units of a plurality of
9
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
different geo-spatial positioning systems, including being
configured to at least one of:
selectively control operation of the plurality of
wireless locating units, or
control operation of the plurality of wireless
locating units such that the asset is locatable at one or more
instances based on data from the plurality of different geo­
spatial positioning systems.
Appellants contend that the cited portions of Coffee “fail to disclose,
teach, or suggest selectively controlling operation of the plurality of wireless
locating units or controlling operation of the plurality of wireless locating
units .... Instead, Coffee merely discloses a single tracker providing
location data using a location determining mechanism.” (Br. 18—19.) The
Examiner explains that “the plurality of wireless locating units [(that are
being controlled)] are not the same as the one or more wireless locating units
that are positionable on the object” recited in claim 1. (Ans. 11.) In other
words, according to the Examiner, “the plurality of wireless locating units”
in claim 12 are found in other objects. Appellants do not respond to the
Examiner’s findings and we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 21, as well as dependent claims 7,
8, and 10-12. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these
claims, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 24—27,
and 32, which depend on either claim 1 or 21, and are not argued separately.
(Br. 14.) Appellants make similar arguments for claims 5, 14, 15, 17—20,
23, and 28—31 (Br. 19-23), and for the same reasons discussed above, we
also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of these claims.
10
Appeal 2016-004099
Application 12/169,742
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1,2, 5—15, 17—21, and
23—32 is 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
11