Ex Parte Jones et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13875608 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
13/875,608 05/02/2013 Nicholaus A. Jones 8842-130740-US 1098
122573 7590 04/03/2017
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP/ Walmart
120 South LaSalle Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
HOLLOWAY III, EDWIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAL-MART STORES, INC.1
Appeal 2017-001760
Application 13/875,608
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—5, 7—13, and 15—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mon (US 6,354,493 Bl; Mar. 12, 2002), Landt (US
6,677,852 Bl; Jan. 13, 2004), and Hougen (US 2006/0208859 Al; Sep. 21,
2006). Final Act. 2—12.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mon, Landt, Hougen, and Bates (US 6,420,961 Bl; Jul. 16, 2002).
Final Act. 12—14.
1 Nicholaus A. Jones, Wallace Carrell King, and Michael Jeffrey Galvin are
named as inventors.
Appeal 2017-001760
Application 13/875,608
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “reading of Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) tags.” Spec. 1:7—8. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. A method to facilitate reading a plurality of radio frequency
identification (RFID) tags, the method comprising:
receiving, within a RFID tag reader and from a remote processor that
is separate from the RFID tag reader, identification information
corresponding to one or more RFID tags of interest, wherein the
identification information distinguishes the one or more RFID tags of
interest from other RFID tags that are not currently of interest;
interrogating, after having received the identification information, a
plurality of RFID tags while the RFID tag reader is remote from and not in
communication with the remote processor;
receiving at the RFID tag reader multiple corresponding RFID tag
responses from various ones of the plurality of RFID tags;
evaluating locally at the RFID tag reader each of the multiple RFID
tag responses relative to at least the identification information;
identifying, as a function of the evaluating, a plurality of RFID tags
that are RFID tags of interest; and
producing, locally at the RFID tag reader and in response to
identifying the plurality of RFID tags of interest, end user-perceivable
indications corresponding to at least one RFID tag response from each of the
plurality of RFID tags of interest, by providing only one such end user-
perceivable indication for each of the plurality of RFID tags notwithstanding
that a given one of the plurality of RFID tags might respond to the en masse
interrogation more than once, to thereby inform an end user of the RFID tag
reader with respect to a corresponding reading state as regards to the
plurality of RFID tags.
2
Appeal 2017-001760
Application 13/875,608
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-5,7-13, and 15-20 over Mon,
Landt, and Hougen
The Examiner finds Mon, Landt, and Hougen teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 2—A\ see also Ans. 2—A.
The Examiner finds Mon teaches all limitations of claim 1, except for
interrogating (claim 1) “while the RFID tag reader is remote from and not in
communication with the remote processor” and (claim 1) “providing only
one such end user-perceivable indication for each of the plurality of RFID
tags.” See Final Act. 2—3.
The Examiner finds Landt teaches interrogating (claim 1) “while the
RFID tag reader is remote from and not in communication with the remote
processor.” See Final Act. 3. The Examiner reasons it would have been
obvious to modify Mon “to permit rapid data collection within a
warehouse.” Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds Hougen teaches (claim 1) “providing only one
such end user-perceivable indication for each of the plurality of RFID tags.”
Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to modify
Mon and Landt “to remove duplication indications such that only one
indication is provided per tag for each interrogation.” Final Act. 4.
Mon (Abstract) discloses:
A method for operator feedback when utilizing an RFID
reader to find a specific RFID tagged article located in a plurality
of RFID tagged articles is provided. Specific search criteria
associated with a desired article are entered into the RFID reader.
To begin searching for the specific RFID tagged article, the
RFID reader sends out an interrogation signal to the RFID tags.
An RFID tag responds with the desired RFID tag data. A
3
Appeal 2017-001760
Application 13/875,608
processor compares the number of RFID tags matching the
search criteria to the total number of RFID tags received. A
feedback signal is generated according to the ratio of RFID tags
matching the search criteria to the total number of RFID tags
received.
Hougen (| 35) discloses: “Preferably duplicate tag reads are removed
by a suitable method. The user may also be notified by actuation
of an LED 17 such as by flashing green each time a new tag is read.”
Hougen (| 37) discloses: “Duplicate tag data may also be removed by
keeping track of what tags have already been read, comparing a new tag read
to the list of tags already read and not reporting a duplicate tag if determined
that the tag had already been written.”
Appellant contends modifying Mon as proposed by the Examiner
would render Mon incapable of performing its primary principal of
operation. See App. Br. 13—16. In support of this contention, Appellant
presents the following principal arguments:
“If Mon configured his system to limit each responding RFID tag to
only a single annunciation, that single beep or click would be insufficient to
permit the user to gradually home in on the tag of interest over time and over
a plurality of beeps/clicks.” App. Br. 15. “Absent a multiplicity of
responses, Mon’s approach will simply fail to work and the user will not
succeed in locating a specific tag of interest.” App. Br. 16.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We do not see any error in the Examiner’s findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion of obviousness.
4
Appeal 2017-001760
Application 13/875,608
Mon teaches generating a feedback signal according to the ratio of
RFID tags matching the search criteria to the total number of RFID tags
received. See Mon Abstract. Hougen removes or avoids reporting duplicate
tag reads. See Hougen || 35, 37. A skilled artisan would readily understand
that removing duplicate tag reads would help Mon’s system more accurately
calculate the ratio of RFID tags matching the search criteria to the total
number of RFID tags received.
In reaching our conclusion, we adopt as our own the Examiner’s
further explanation that “the reader of Mon interrogates plural tags, then
moves and again interrogates plural tags. This provides a new en mass
interrogation and indication after each movement.” Ans. 3. That is, for each
individual mass interrogation in Mon, duplicates are removed, when Mon is
modified in light of Hougen’s teachings. Put another way, we interpret each
response in Mon as a single interrogation in which duplicates are removed,
with Mon needing a sequence of interrogations (each in which duplicates are
removed) to home in on a tag. We do not agree with Appellant’s further
argument in the Reply Brief: “It is only by considering those repeated
responses in the context of a single interrogation event that Mon can
successfully provide the intended change in rate/volume level.” Reply Br. 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2—5, 7—13, and 15—20, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
5
Appeal 2017-001760
Application 13/875,608
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6 and 14 over Mon, Landt,
Hougen, and Bates
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 6 and 14.
See App. Br. 17.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 14 for
reasons discussed above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
6