Ex Parte Scaramozzino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2012

11000795 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte UMBERTO R. SCARAMOZZINO
_____________

Appeal 2009-012873
Application 11/000,795
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012873
Application 11/000,795

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-10, 13-24, and 27-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system and method
which manages Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) readers “by
controlling the RFID readers to reduce interference between RFID
transmissions.” (Spec. 26, Abstract of the Disclosure).
Specifically, the management system 100 uses the reader
locator 104 to locate the RFID readers, including mobile and
fixed RFID readers. The management system 100 uses the
reader controller 102 to selectively control the transmitting of
the RFID readers such that proximate readers do not transmit
simultaneously.
(Spec. 7, ¶0026], Fig.1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. An RFID reader management system, the RFID reader
management system comprising:
an RFID reader locator, the RFID reader locator locating a
mobile RFID reader and at least one other RFID reader; and
an RFID reader controller, the RFID reader controller
determining if any RFID reader in the at least one other RFID reader
is proximate to the mobile RFID reader, the RFID reader selectively
controlling the mobile RFID reader and the at least one other RFID
reader such that the mobile RFID reader and the any RFID reader in
the least one other RFID reader that is determined to be proximate to
the mobile RFID reader do not transmit simultaneously to reduce
Appeal 2009-012873
Application 11/000,795

3
interference between the mobile RFID reader and the at least one
other RFID reader.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Schuermann US 5,455,575 Oct. 3, 1995
Shober US 5,952,922 Sept. 14, 1999
Schepps US 6,040,774 Mar. 21, 2000
Breed US 2004/0130442 A1 July 8, 2004
Vesuna US 6,784,842 B2 Aug. 31, 2004
Taki US 7,084,739 B2 Aug. 1, 2006

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 13, 15, 16, 20, 27, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuermann in view of Taki.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuermann, Taki, and Breed.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuermann, Taki, and Vesuna.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 14, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuermann, Taki, and Shober.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 24, and 29-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuermann, Taki, and Schepps.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Schuermann in view of Taki teaches the limitations of:
Appeal 2009-012873
Application 11/000,795

4
an RFID reader locator, the RFID reader locator locating
a mobile RFID reader and at least one other RFID reader; and
an RFID reader controller, the RFID reader controller
determining if any RFID reader in the at least one other RFID reader
is proximate to the mobile RFID reader.
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the
claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re
Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974).

ANALYSIS
Appellant explains that both Schuermann and Taki are directed to the
use of a contention protocol of Listen Before Talk (LBT) wherein “devices
listen to determine if the communication frequency is free before attempting
to transmit.” (App. Br. 10; See Schuermann’s col. 6, ll. 46-65; and Taki’s
col. 11, ll. 37-46). Appellant argues that LBT protocols do not teach
determining the location of any RFID reader to determine whether to
transmit or not. (App. Br. 10). Appellant argues that “t]here is no
mechanism used to ‘locate’ any readers, . . . Nor is there any determination
that any such mobile RFID readers is ‘proximate’ to any other readers.” (Id.
at 11).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner did not
address the limitation of “an RFID reader locator, the RFID reader locator
locating a mobile RFID reader and at least one other RFID reader” (claim 1).
(See Ans. 4, 11-12). The Examiner’s statement of “[t]he determination that
Appeal 2009-012873
Application 11/000,795

5
the interrogator is proximate to another interrogator is considered the
locating of the interrogator” (Ans. 4) impermissibly ignores the limitation of
“an RFID reader locator . . . locating a mobile RFID reader and at least one
other RFID reader” as required by claim 1. From the record before us,
neither Schuermann nor Taki teaches this limitation. See Royka, 490 F.2d at
985. The additional references of Breed, Vesuna, and Schepps do not cure
the cited deficiency.
For the aforesaid reasons we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 2-10, 13-24, and 27-32.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Schuermann in
view of Taki teaches the limitation of:
an RFID reader locator, the RFID reader locator locating a
mobile RFID reader and at least one other RFID reader; and
an RFID reader controller, the RFID reader controller
determining if any RFID reader in the at least one other RFID reader
is proximate to the mobile RFID reader.
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10, 13-24, and 27-32 is
reversed.

REVERSED

llw