Ex Parte Schuler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

11558528 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111558,528 11/10/2006
22917 7590 08/05/2016
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC
IP Law Docketing
1301 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD
IL02 5th Floor - SHS
SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Francesca Schuler
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.
CML02729T 2389
EXAMINER
KELLY, RAFFERTY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANCESCA SCHULER and THOMAS S. BABIN
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicants (hereinafter "Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a final decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 6-
12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants state that the Real Party in Interest is "Motorola Solutions,
Inc." (Appeal Brief filed March 20, 2014, hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 2).
2 Appeal Br. 2, 7-12; Final Office Action delivered electronically on
September 13, 2013, hereinafter "Final Act.," 2-7.
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to "method steps ... related to
communication with transported goods" (Specification, hereinafter "Spec.,"
i-f 15). Claims 6 and 15, the independent claims on appeal, are reproduced
from pages 13 and 15, respectively, of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix)
with key limitations indicated in italicized text, as follows:
6. A method for transmitting new information to a
computer-readable [memory3] associated with goods
transported in a container by a carrier, the method comprising:
storing the new information in a database;
when the container is in proximity of a communication
node of the carrier:
an intelligent device of the container including a
transponder for transmitting its identity to the communication
node of the carrier;
the carrier communication node querying the database to
determine if new information is available for the container;
the carrier communication node transmitting the new
information to the intelligent device of the container;
the intelligent device of the container transmitting the
new information to an intelligent device within the container
and associated with the transported goods carried within the
container; and
the intelligent device associated with the transported
goods storing the new information in the computer-readable
memory;
wherein a first portion of the new information is
encrypted; and
wherein a second portion of the new information is not
encrypted.
3 The word "memory" is omitted in claim 6 reproduced in the Claims
Appendix. This is apparently an inadvertent error. Compare the listing of
claim 6 in the Amendment dated June 13, 2013, with the prior listing of the
claim in the Amendment dated October 4, 2010.
2
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
15. A method for transmitting information from a computer-
readable memory associated with a transported item in a
container by a carrier, the method comprising:
a first intelligent device located on a pallet supporting the
transported item reading information stored in a computer-
readable memory on a radio-frequency identification tag
attached to the transported item;
the first intelligent device within the container
transmitting the information to a second intelligent device
located on the container;
the second intelligent device transmitting the information
and its own identity to a first communication node of the
carrier; and
the first carrier communication node storing the
information in a database of the carrier;
wherein a first portion of the information is encrypted;
and
wherein a second portion of the information is not
encrypted.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 6-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schon4 in view of Kara5
(Examiner's Answer delivered electronically on July 31, 2014, hereinafter
"Ans.," 2-6; Final Act. 3-7).
DISCUSSION
The Appellants focus their arguments solely on the two independent
claims on appeal-namely, claims 6 and 15 (Appeal Br. 8-12). Therefore,
4 US 2005/0071234 Al, published March 31, 2005.
5 US 7,711,650 Bl, issued May 4, 2010.
3
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv), we confine our discussion to
these two representative claims 6 and 15. By rule, the non-argued dependent
claims stand or fall with the representative claim from which they depend.
Claim 6
The Examiner found that Schon teaches all of the limitations of claim
6, except for the requirements that "a first portion of the new information is
encrypted" and "a second portion of the new information is not encrypted"
(Final Act. 3, citing Schon i-fi-156, 59-61). In making these findings, the
Examiner read Shon onto the recitations in claim 6 as follows: ( 1) the
claimed "container" corresponds to the pallet 330 of Schon (Final Act. 3,
referring to Schon's descriptions pertaining to Fig. 3); (2) the "new
information" corresponds to any information that may be stored by the
master computer system 320 and transmitted to all intelligent devices of
Schon (Ans. 6-7, Final Act. 3); (3) the "intelligent device of the container"
corresponds to the RF tag of 334 located on the pallet 330 of Schon (Final
Act. 3); (3) the "transponder" corresponds to the RF identifier (ID) 336 of
Schon (Ans. 2, Final Act. 3); and ( 4) the "intelligent device within the
container" corresponds to the RF tag 3 72 associated with the specific item
370 of Schon (Final Act. 3).
To account for the differences between Schon and the claimed subject
matter, the Examiner relied upon Kara (id.). Specifically, the Examiner
found that "Kara teaches wherein a first portion of the new information is
encrypted; and wherein a second portion of the new information is not
encrypted" (Final Act. 3, citing Kara, col. 26, 11. 3-14 and col. 26, 11. 25-29).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that "it would have been
obvious to ... provide a tag with both encrypted information and
4
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
unencrypted information .... allow[ing] the tag to identify ... barcode type to
a reader while ... containing more sensitive information" (Final Act. 3--4).
The Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings that Schon's
disclosures relating to pallet 330, RF tag 334 on pallet 330, and RF tag 372
on item 370 are descriptions of "a container," "an intelligent device of the
container," and "an intelligent device within the container," all as recited in
claim 6 (see Appeal Br. 8-10). Nor do they dispute the Examiner's findings
regarding Kara's teachings and the articulated reason in support of a
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
Schon with Kara to provide both encrypted and unencrypted portions in the
information being transmitted in Schon's method (id.).
Rather, the Appellants' only contention is that, contrary to the
Examiner's findings, Schon does not teach the following in claim 6: "the
carrier communication node transmitting the new information to the
intelligent device of the container" and "the intelligent device of the
container transmitting the new information to an intelligent device within the
container" (id. at 9). According to the Appellants, "Schon disclose[ s] that
[a] picklist is conveyed by [a] warehouse computer system to pallet 330, and
... that the picklist then is conveyed from pallet 330 to forklift 310 (when
forklift 310 loads pallet 330 on the forklift's times)" but "[n]owhere does
Schon disclose a conveyance of the picklist from pallet 330 to an item 370
placed on the pallet" (id.) (italics and underlining omitted). The Appellants
argue that, "[i]n fact, to transfer the picklist (i.e., a list of items to be picked
up) from the pallet to individual items on the pallet would make little sense
in Schon" (id.).
5
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
For the reasons given below, the Appellants' arguments do not
identify a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
I. Whether Schon teaches that the new information is conveyed
from the carrier communication node to the intelligent
device of the container, and from the intelligent device of the
container to the intelligent device within the container
The PTO gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation not
inconsistent with the remainder of the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be
amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language
explored, and clarification imposed."). See also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]his court counsels the PTO to avoid the
temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification
passages.").
Consistent with this longstanding principle, the Examiner determined
that the recitation "new information" as broadly recited in claim 6 reads on
the types of information disclosed in Schon's paragraph 61 as being
transmitted to and from the various disclosed system elements (Ans. 6).
There, Schon teaches that the "information can include when an item was
added to the pallet, when the item was loaded on a truck or into a container,
or any other information that is useful to the warehouse" (Schon i-f 61 ). The
Examiner explained that "the claimed 'new information' includes more than
just the picklist [of Schon]" and that"[t]his further information includes, for
example, item identification, item location, and item movement information"
(Ans. 6, citing Schon's Figure 4 and i-f 61). Thus, although a picklist is
mentioned in Schon as an example of useful information that is conveyed,
6
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
Schon's overall disclosure indicates that the information is not limited to a
picklist but may include any information useful to the warehouse. See also
Schon i-f 51 ("Included in this information is picklist 355 or other
information that is useful to an operator 312 in filling the order indicated by
the picklist.").
Having concluded that the term "new information" reads on any new
information including the various types of information disclosed in Schon,
we discern no reversible error in the Examiner's finding that the "further
information is transmitted to the pallet, the forklift and to the item" and
that"[ t ]herefore, the new information is transmitted to all of the intelligent
devices" (Ans. 6-7, citing Schon i-f 61 ). In this regard, Schon teaches
explicitly that "RF reader 332 [on pallet 330] is configured to receive and
transmit from/to the master computer system 320, a plurality of items 370,
and the forklift 310" (Schon i-f 52). Schon teaches that the "RF reader 332
can also transmit to the RF tag 370 [sic, 372] information about the pallet
330 onto which the item 370 is loaded" (Schon i-f 54), that the information
transmitted to the RF tag may "include a pallet ID, and a date and time the
item was added to the pallet 330" (id.), that "this information can be used in
tracking the history of the item 370 in the event the item is damaged or
missing from an order" (id.), and that "more or less information can be
provided to tags 334 and 370" (id.).
Given these facts, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Schon teaches transmission of information which meets the
recitations in claim 6 requiring that "the carrier communication node
transmitting the new information to the intelligent device of the container"
7
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
and "the intelligent device of the container transmitting the new information
to an intelligent device within the container."
Claim 15
II. Whether Schon teaches that the second intelligence device
transmits the information and its own identity to a
communication node of the carrier
For claim 15, the Examiner found that Schon discloses a forklift 310
and that the forklift 310, which is provided with RF reader 316, can be
considered as the "container" recited in the claim (Final Act. 6). In addition,
the Examiner explained that Schon's RF reader 332/RF tag 334 located on
pallet 3 3 0 and RF reader 3 16 on forklift 310 correspond to the Appellants'
"a first intelligent device located on a pallet" and "a second intelligent
device located on the container," respectively, as recited in the claim.
The Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Schon's
disclosure of a forklift 310 is a description of "a container" as recited in
claim 15. Rather, the Appellants contend that "nowhere does Schon teach
forklift 310 conveying RFID tag information obtained from items 370, along
with the forklift's own identity, to warehouse computer system 320" as
would be required by claim 15' s limitations "the second intelligent device
transmitting the information and its own identity to a first communication
node of the carrier; and the first carrier node storing the information in a
database of the carrier" (Appeal Br. 11 ). The Appellants also contend that
"Schon is concerned with providing a list of items to be picked up to the
forklift, not with retrieving, via the forklift, information stored by those
items" (id.).
We disagree with the Appellants. The Examiner found that "Schon
teaches that the [master] computer system (320) can locate the forklift [using
8
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
RF readers 380] and direct the forklift to certain items in the warehouse"
(Ans. 7). The Examiner also found that the "picklist and item identification
information is transmitted to the forklift. ... [the] information is updated by
the forklift software, and ... sent back to ... [master] computer system ...
via ... pallet" (Ans. 7, citing Schon i-fi-1 61 and 78). These findings are
supported in Schon's teachings.
Schon teaches that "[i]nformation is provided to the forklift 310 from
the product storage device 330" and that "[t]his information is received from
the product storage device 330 at the RF reader 316" (Schon i1 51 ). In
addition, Schon explicitly teaches that the forklift is tracked as it moves
around the warehouse filling orders (id. i1 61 ). As we found previously,
Schon also teaches that "RF reader 332 is configured to receive/transmit
information from/to the master computer system 320, a plurality of items
370, and the forklift 310" (id. i152). Because the forklift 310 receives
information from the RF reader 316/ second intelligent device via the product
storage device 330 and because the forklift 310 is able to receive
information from the master computer system 320/first communication node
of the carrier, one of ordinary skill in the art would have drawn a reasonable
inference that forklift 310 is in communication with the master computer
system 320 or would have found such an implementation obvious in view of
Schon' s teachings so that all of the information can go back to one central
location for easy access and for security purposes.
9
Appeal2015-000252
Application 11/558,528
SUMMARY
For these reasons, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 6-12,
14, 15, 17, 18 and 21-23 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).
AFFIRMED
10