Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 8,690,057
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RF CONTROLS, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`A-1 PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 8,690,057
`Issue Date: April 8, 2014
`
`Title: RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR TRACKING
`AND MANAGING MATERIALS IN A MANUFACTURING PROCESS
`
`Case IPR: IPR2014—01536
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PAR TES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,690,057
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.}-.80 && 42.100-.123
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING TO PETITION THE BOARD FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW ............................................................................ ..l
`
`A.
`
`the ‘057 Patent May Be Contested by
`Certification that
`Petitioner ............................................................................................. .. 1
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review ................................................................ ..l
`
`C. Mandatory Notices .............................................................................. ..2
`1.
`Real Party in Interest ................................................................. ..2
`2.
`Related Matters ......................................................................... ..2
`
`3.
`4.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel ....................................................... ..2
`Service Information .................................................................. ..3
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..................................... ..3
`
`INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CONTESTED PATENT ............. ..4
`
`Effective Filing Date and Applicable Law ......................................... ..4
`A.
`Independent Claims ............................................................................. ..4
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... ..4
`C.
`PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .................................... ..5
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. .. 5
`
`IV.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`Antenna, Antenna System, Antenna Element........................... ..6
`Inventory Tracking Region ..................................................... ..10
`Detection Controller................................................................ .. 11
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim I Is Anticipated .................................................. ..I3
`I.
`The Prosecution History Shows All Elements of Claim 1
`in Subramanian ....................................................................... .. l3
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Subramanian Shows Every Element of Independent
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... .. 16
`
`Hofer (Ex. 1007) Shows Every Element of Independent
`Claims I, 17 and 27 ................................................................ ..23
`
`4.
`
`Husak (Ex. 1009) Shows Every Element of Independent
`Claims I, 17, and 27 ............................................................... ..26
`Dependent Claims 2«7, 10-1 1, I3, l5—l6 Are Anticipated ............... ..29
`Independent Claim 1 Is Obvious ....................................................... ..35
`Dependent Claims 216 Are Obvious ............................................... ..37
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`

`
`I. GROUNDS FOR STANDING TO PETITION THE BOARD FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(a), Petitioner submits the following
`
`certifications that inter partes review is available for United States Patent No.
`
`8,690,057 (“the ‘057 patent” or “’057”) (EX. 1001) and that Petitioner has standing
`
`to petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) concerning same.
`
`A.
`
`Certification that the ‘057 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.101, Petitioner certifies that Petitioner is not the
`
`patent owner and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review of ‘057. Neither Petitioner, nor any party in privity with Petitioner,
`
`has filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim in ‘057, and ‘057 has
`
`not been the subject of a prior inter partes review instituted by Petitioner or any
`
`party in privity with Petitioner that has resulted in a final written decision.
`
`35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c)(1). Petitioner also certifies that Petitioner has not been served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of ‘057. This Petition is timely filed
`
`pursuant to the Leahy—Smith America lnvents Technical Corrections Act, Public
`
`Law ll2-274 (Jan. 14, 2013), Section l(d)(l).
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F .R. § 42.15(a), the Petitioner has paid the fee specified by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.l5(a) by credit card at the time of filing. No further fees are
`
`

`
`believed owed at this time but the Director is authorized to charge any further fees
`
`deemed due, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 50-0975.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b), Petitioner provides the following mandatory
`
`notices.
`
`1.
`
`Real Party in Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), the real party in interest, is RF Controls,
`
`LLC (“RFC”) located at 1400 South 3rd Street, Suite 220, St. Louis MO 63104.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), RFC is not aware of any other judicial or
`
`administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), lead and backup counsel for RFC are as
`
`follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Michael J. Hickey
`Reg. No. 51,801
`mhickey@,lewisrice.com
`I (314) 444-7630
`
`
`
`
`
` Benjamin J. Siders
`
`
`Kirk A. Dainman
`
`Reg. No. 42,461
`kdamman lewisricecorn
`
`(314) 444—7783
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 70,411
`bsiders@lewisrice.com
`
`
`(314) 444-—7805
`
`
`

`
`4.
`
`Service Information
`
`Proof of Service of this Petition is provided in Attachment A hereto.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), claims 1-16 in the ‘057 patent are
`
`unpatentable as anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b) and/or (e),
`
`and/or as obvious over
`
`the prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a).
`
`Specifically:
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13, 15-16 are anticipated under § 102(e) by U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/214,823 (Subramanian)
`
`(Ex. 1006), published as
`
`Publication No. US 2013/0049925 A1 (Ex. 1021);
`
`(ii)
`
`Claim 1
`
`is anticipated under § 102(b) or (e) by U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,493,182 (Hofer)
`
`(Ex. 1007), published as application Publication No. US
`
`2011/0090062 A1 (Ex. 1022);
`
`(iii) Claim 1 is anticipated under § 102(b) by U.S. Patent No. 7,667,575
`
`(Husak) (Ex. 1009);
`
`(iv) Claims 1-16 are rendered obvious under § 103(a) by Subramanian
`
`Hofer, and/or Husak.
`
`(v)
`
`Claims 8-9, 12 and 14 are rendered obvious under § 103(a) by
`
`Subramanian in View of Takaku.
`
`

`
`Petition’s proposed construction of the claims, the evidence relied upon, and
`
`the precise reasons why the claims are invalid are provided in Section IV of this
`
`Petition, below.
`
`The evidence relied upon in this Petition is set
`
`forth in
`
`Attachment B hereto. Additionally, Petitioner directs the Board’s attention to the
`
`claims chart attached hereto as Attachment C.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CONTESTED PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Effective Filing Date and Applicable Law
`
`The ‘057 patent issued from United States Utility Patent Application No.
`
`13/857,6l6,
`
`(Ex. 1002)
`
`filed April
`
`5, 2013, which is a continuation of
`
`PCT/US2013/029408, filed March 6, 2013 (Ex. 1003), and which claims benefit of
`
`United States Provisional Patent Application No. 61/607,406, filed March 6, 2012
`
`(Ex. 1004), and United States Provisional Patent Application No. 61/708,518, filed
`
`October 1, 2012 (Ex. 1005). Accordingly, Petitioner assumes solely for sake of
`
`this Petition that the effective filing date of ‘057 as to all claims is not earlier than
`
`March 6, 2012.
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims
`
`I
`
`Claim 1, 17, and 27 are the only independent claims in ‘057. Of these, only
`
`claim 1 is at issue in this Petition.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The field of the ‘057 patent is identified therein as “using radio frequency
`
`identification (RFID) technology to advantageously track, manage and control the
`
`4
`
`

`
`flow and or
`
`[sic] positions of material,
`
`such as inventory items, within a
`
`manufacturing process or an inventory storage facility, to make the tracking and
`
`retrieval of inventory items more automatic and efficient.” Ex. 1001, l:22~27.
`
`Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ‘057 on
`
`March 6, 2012, would have been a person with a good working knowledge of the
`
`use of wireless data transmission using electromagnetic fields in a manufacturing
`
`and/or warehousing environment, including RFID tag location techniques. The
`
`person would have gained this knowledge and skiil through a degree in electrical
`
`engineering or a comparable field in combination with training and/or practical
`
`working experience concerning the tracking of RFID tags in manufacturing and
`
`warehousing environments.
`
`IV.
`
`PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Each of the contested claims in this proceeding shall be given “its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). To the extent that Patent Owner contends a term
`
`has a meaning other than its plain meaning, Patent Owner should provide a
`
`statement
`
`identifying a proposed construction of the particular
`
`term,
`
`and
`
`identifying where the disclosure supports that meaning. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 at
`
`Ii.B.6 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`In the proposed construction below, Petitioner identifies
`
`

`
`subject matter which falls within the scope of the claims, read in their broadest
`
`reasonable construction, which Petitioner submits is sufficient for purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`1.
`
`Antenna, Antenna System, Antenna Element
`
`The ‘O57 patent does not expressly define the terms antenna, antenna
`
`system, or antenna element. Petitioner maintains that the proper interpretation of
`
`the term antenna is a phased array antenna comprising a plurality of antenna
`
`elements, even though the usage within the ‘O57 patent at times indicates that an
`
`antenna means both an antenna system comprising a plurality of antenna elements,
`
`and an individual antenna element in such a system.
`
`The claim language recites neither antenna systems nor antenna elements,
`
`but rather only antenna generally. At times in the ‘O5 7 patent, this term antenna is
`
`used to refer to both antenna systems and antenna elements. For example, in one
`
`section, ‘O57 refers to antenna elements as “antennas” and distinguishes them from
`
`antenna systems. Ex. 1001, 15:55-56.
`
`In another section,
`
`‘O57 refers to both
`
`antenna systems and antenna elements as “antennas.” Ex. 1001, 169-12 (“The
`
`detection controller 31 may then use a triangulation technique to determine the
`
`position of each RFID tag based on signals from two or three spaced apart
`
`antennas 24 or 14.”).
`
`In still other sections, ‘O57 refers to an antenna system as
`
`both an antenna and an antenna system. Ex. 100l, 15:27-33 (“[A] triangulation
`
`

`
`technique [may be used] based on the RFID signals received at multiple spaced
`
`apart antenna elements 24 (either within the same antenna system 14 or different
`
`antenna systems 14) to scan an area or region to determine the location or position
`
`of each RFID tag within the coverage area of the antennas 14.”); see also Ex. 1001,
`
`16:22-26 (“[T]he antennas 24 or the antenna systems 14 (also referred to as
`
`antennas) ...”).
`
`Although such an interpretation would appear to indicate that the term
`
`“antenna” encompasses both antenna systems comprising a plurality of antenna
`
`elements, and the antenna elements individually, this construction must be avoided
`
`for lack of enablement and Written description. The disclosure of ‘057 does not
`
`contain any written description or enabling disclosure of an individual antenna
`
`element within an array detecting the physical
`
`location of an RFID tag and
`
`determining the value of two coordinate units. Rather, the ‘057 patent describes
`
`and enables only that, at a minimum, a plurality of antenna elements are required,
`
`which may be contained with a single antenna system}
`
`1 Petitioner appreciates that Petitioner may not advance arguments for invalidity under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, and Petitioner does not do so. Rather, Petitioner asserts that the Board may and
`should construe the claim language to avoid interpretations which would invalidate the ciairns
`under § 112. To do otherwise would violate the correct standard of claim interpretation, as
`claims should be interpreted in light of the Specification, and an interpretation not supported or
`enabled in the Specification is not consistent with the standard. Therefore, Petitioner asserts that
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard requires a construction of the claims compliant
`with Section 1E2. See MPEP § 2111.
`
`

`
`For example, the ‘O57 patent discloses:
`
`The detection controller 31 may, alternatively or in conjunction, use a
`
`triangulation technique based on the RFID signals received at multiple
`
`spaced apart antenna elements 24 (either within the same antenna system
`
`14 or different antenna systems 14) to scan an area or region to determine
`
`the location or position of each RFID tag within the coverage area of the
`
`antennas 14. As these detection techniques are well known, the specifics of
`
`these techniques will not be described in detail herein.
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:26-34 (emphasis added). The ‘057 patent further discloses:
`
`[M]ultiple spaced apart antennas cover the same region or coverage area or
`
`volume. RFID tags, when exposed to the radiation from these antennas, will
`
`reflect or emit an RFID tag signal which is then captured or detected by
`
`each of the spaced apart antennas 24 or antenna systems 14. The detection
`
`controller 31 may then use a triangulation technique to determine the
`
`position of each RFID tag based on signals from two or three spaced apart
`
`antennas 24 or 14.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1614-12 (emphasis added). The ‘O57 patent further discloses:
`
`
`
`Petitioner further notes that 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) authorizes this board to “issue a final
`written decision with respect
`to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the
`petitioner” and the plain statutory language thus authorizes this Board to rule on “patentability”
`generally, without any limitation on the bases therefor.
`See, e.g.,
`IPR20l3-00172, No. 8
`Institution Decision at 7 (PTAB July 29, 2013) (instructing Patent Owner to address deficiencies
`under § 112, paragraph four); IPR2012-00001, No. 59 Final Decision (PTAB Nov. E3, 2013)
`(rejecting proposed substitute claims because Patent Owner “failed to set forth how [they] satisfy
`the written description requires of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph”).
`
`

`
`[T]he description provided herein
`
`includes using triangulation
`
`techniques based on signals from multiple different fixed or non- steerable
`
`antennas, or some combination of both.
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:13-19 (emphasis added). The ‘057 patent further discloses:
`
`Generally speaking, a controller associated with the phased array antenna
`
`network 64 is used to electronically steer an energy beam emanated from
`
`each of the phased array antennas 14 or to use a triangulation technique
`
`on signals from multiple antennas 14 to continuously sweep or scan over
`
`an area or volume of the plant floor to thereby provide real
`
`time 3D
`
`detection, monitoring and tracking of RFID tagged objects.
`
`EX. 1001, 18:25-32 (emphasis added). The closest ‘057 comes to describing a
`
`single antenna element detecting the location of an RFID tag is:
`
`RFID tags, when swept over by the high strength portion of the beam, will
`
`reflect or emit an RFID tag signal which is then captured or detected by an
`
`antenna 24 or an antenna system 14 (typically the antenna or system
`
`emitting the beam impinging on the RFID tag). The location and direction of
`
`the beam and the amount of time, for example, that it takes for the RFID tag
`
`to respond may be used to detect
`
`the two dimensional or the three
`
`dimensional
`
`location of the RFID tag using the detection techniques
`
`described above.
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:59-67.
`
`The only “detection technique described above” is the
`
`“triangulation technique based on the RFID signals received at multiple spaced
`
`apart antenna elements 24.” Ex. 1001, 15:28-30. Since this technique expressly
`
`requires that multiple spaced apart antenna elements receive RFID signals, it does
`
`not describe or enable a single antenna element determining physical location. No
`
`9
`
`

`
`other techniques are disclosed in ‘O57, as they “are well known” and “not
`
`described in detail herein.” EX. 1001, l5:—34-35.
`
`The ‘O57 patent further explains that an “antenna system 14
`
`may be for
`
`example, one or more electronically steerable phased array antenna systems each
`
`having multiple antenna elements 24” and the antenna system may be “any of the
`
`phased array systems sold by RF Controls LLC [Petitioner] and/or disclosed in
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0207738 (the entire disclosure of which is hereby expressly
`
`incorporated by reference herein)[.]” Ex. 1001, 14:28-32. As the term “array”
`
`suggests, Petitioner’s “antenna systems” include a plurality of individual antenna
`
`elements.
`
`See also U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0207738 fl 0013 (Ex. 1011); Ex. 1001,
`
`14:36-41 (“antenna systems 14 in general may include any number of antenna
`
`elements disposed in” various configurations).
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “antenna,”
`
`and as supported by the ‘O57 disclosure, is a phased array antenna comprising a
`
`plurality of antenna elements, such as a phased array antenna of the kind sold by
`
`Petitioner and well—l<noWn in the art.
`
`2.
`
`Inventory Tracking Region
`
`The ‘O57 patent does not expressly define the term irzveruory tracking region
`
`and it appears only in the claims and summary. However, the usage of this term in
`
`10
`
`

`
`‘O57 indicates that an inventory tracking region means an area or location within a
`
`building or facility in which inventory is tracked.
`
`For example, ‘O57 uses the term “region” standing alone to mean an area or
`
`location within a building or facility. The ‘O57 patent describes “tracking and
`
`recording the location of received raw materials in an inventory area or region ofa
`
`plant using the 3D RFID detection and tracking system [and]
`
`tracking the
`
`movement of the raw materials from place to place within the inventory area or
`
`region to other areas or regions.” Ex. 1001, 13:36-42 (emphasis added). The
`
`‘O57 patent further describes scanning “an area or region of a plant or other
`
`building or location” and scanning “the Various locations or regions of the plant 50
`
`at which RFID tags may be located.” Ex. 1001 at l6:l3—l5, 18:53-54 (emphasis
`
`added). One of ordinary skill in the art would thus understand inventory tracking
`
`region as used in ‘O57 to mean an area or location within a building or facility in
`
`which inventory is to be tracked.
`
`3.
`
`Detection Controller
`
`The ‘O57 patent does not expressly define the term detection controller and
`
`provides little description of its structure. Rather,
`
`‘O57 primarily describes the
`
`detection controller by its functions. The usage of this tenn in ‘O57 indicates that a
`
`detection controller is an RFID module which: operates an antenna to emit beams
`
`and receive signals from RFID tags; uses triangulation or other known aigorithms
`
`ll
`
`

`
`to determine the location of detected RFID tags based on the signals received by
`
`the antenna; and, optionally steers the antenna or beam. A detection controller
`
`may be a single device, or a plurality of separate devices each associated with a
`
`different antenna.
`
`For example, the ‘057 patent states the detection controller “is part of the
`
`RFID tracking system for interfacing with and potentially controlling the antenna
`
`system.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:50-52.
`
`The ‘057 patent further states the detection
`
`controller “operates to control or energize the antennas 24 to emit RFID detection
`
`signals [and] receives the signals reflected or emitted by the RFID tags and
`
`collected by the antennas 24 and processes these signals to determine the identity
`
`of and the precise location of the RFID tags[.]” Ex. 1001, 1529-16. The ‘057
`
`patent
`
`fiirther discloses that detection controllers may “use a triangulation
`
`technique based on the RFID signals received at multiple spaced apart antenna
`
`elements 24
`
`to scan an area or region to determine the location or position of
`
`each RFID tag within the coverage area of the antennas.” BX. 1001, 15:28-33. The
`
`‘057 patent further states that the detection controller “may even steer that beam
`
`across the region or multiple different regions using known phased array beam
`
`steering techniques.” Ex. 1001, 15:25-27. The ‘057 patent describes that a
`
`detection controller “may be a centralized controller
`
`or
`
`may have a separate
`
`controller element associated with each antenna 24 or antenna system 14[.]” Ex.
`
`12
`
`

`
`1001, 15:46-49. Finally, ‘O57 states that an “RFID module” is also known as a
`
`“detection controller.” Ex. 1001, 17:10-11.
`
`B. Independent Claim 1 Is Anticipated
`
`1.
`
`The Prosecution History Shows All Elements of Claim 1 in
`Submmanian
`
`As originally filed,
`
`the independent claims of ‘O57 recited a detection
`
`controller controlling a plurality of radio frequency antennas to scan a portion of an
`
`inventory tracking region to detect RFID tags disposed therein, and the detection
`
`controller generated indications of the detected radio frequency tags and the
`
`physical
`
`locations of same. See Ex. 1002, Claims. As discussed above, the
`
`specification of ‘O57 enables only the use of triangulation to pinpoint physical
`
`location, which requires a plurality of spaced apart RFID antennas.
`
`ln prosecution of ‘O57, the Examiner raised U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/214,823, filed on August 22, 2011 by Subramanian (Ex. 1006) as prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § iO2(e).
`
`Stated briefly, Subramcmian discloses an
`
`adjustable-orientation RFID tag reader system and method wherein one or more
`
`RFID antennas are disposed within a controlled interior area and operated using a
`
`computer, and the antennas scan and detect RFID tags in the controlled area and
`
`maintain and update data about the tags in an external computer system. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1006 ‘H 0012. Subramanian discloses that just one single RFID tag reader
`
`system (having just one antenna) may be sufficient to determine physical location,
`
`13
`
`

`
`and that this determination may be “refined” through the use of one or more
`
`additional RFID tag readers. EX. 1006 W 0036, 0051.
`
`In prosecution, Patent Owner amended the independent claims to recite that
`
`just one “antenna” detects the physical location of the RFID tags, and to recite that
`
`the antenna provides the values of two coordinate units corresponding to the
`
`physical locatior1.2 Patent Owner then distinguished Subramanian on this point
`
`alone, arguing that “when using a single directional antenna, the RFID tag reader
`
`system [of Subramanian] is only capable of determining the directional position of
`
`a detected RFID tag.
`
`In order for the RFID tag reader system [of Subramanian]
`
`to determine a precise physical location of the RFID tag (e.g., a direction and a
`
`distance or some other two dimensional range or position of the RFID tag),
`
`multiple directional antennas are needed to perform triangulation calculations.”
`
`Ex.1012, p. 12, citing Subramamfan 110051.
`
`“By contrast, in [‘057], only one
`
`radio frequency antenna is needed to detect the physical location of an RFID tag in
`
`two dimensions.” Id.
`
`Petitioner
`
`contends
`
`that Patent Owner misstated the disclosure of
`
`Subramanian and distinguished ‘057 on the basis of limitations that do not appear
`
`the
`2 It should be noted that Patent Owner amended the claims from reciting that
`detection controiler provided the values to claiming that the antenna itself provided the values.
`Petitioner has found find no enabling disclosure or written description in ‘057 supporting this
`amendment.
`
`14
`
`

`
`in the claim language. First, Patent Owner recognized that Subramanian can use a
`
`single antenna to determine the iocation of a detected RFID tag, but then argued
`
`that
`
`the single antenna of Subramanian “is only capable of determining the
`
`directional position of a detected RFID tag,” citing paragraph 0051, and apparently
`
`asserting that Subramanian cannot obtain a second coordinate. However,
`
`that
`
`paragraph of Subramanian discloses that at a minimum determining directional
`
`position is possible. Ex. 1006 110051 (“In order to determine a location
`
`geometrical analysis is performed
`
`to determine, at least, a direction in which
`
`antenna 314 was pointing ...”). Second, Patent Owner argued that “a position
`
`defined by two coordinate units in a multi-dimensional coordinate system” means
`
`“a direction and a distance, two distances or ranges of distances in orthogonal axes,
`
`etc,” but those limitations are not recited in the claim language and, in any case,
`
`Patent Owner admitted in ‘O57 that such “detection techniques are well known.”3
`
`EX. 1001, 15:33-34.
`
`For example,
`
`it
`
`is known in the art
`
`that
`
`in three—dimensional polar
`
`coordinates, also known as a spherical coordinate system,
`
`two of the three
`
`coordinate units are angles, one defining a zenith angle and one defining an
`
`azimuth angle, and the third unit being distance along a ray at those angles. As
`
`3 See supra note i.
`
`15
`
`

`
`discussed below, Subramanian describes angular orientation using (at least) two
`
`angular components of a spherical coordinate system, and thus discloses two
`
`coordinate units in a multi—dimensional coordinate system.
`
`Although the Examiner allowed the claims, this was clearly an oversight.
`
`Moreover, even assuming for sake of argument that Subramanian is deemed not to
`
`disclose this limitation, the use of two coordinates and a single fixed receiver to
`
`determine location is merely an implementation of a basic mathematical concept
`
`already utilized in a variety of venerable technologies (such as, but certainly not
`
`limited to, radar) and is disclosed in numerous references in conjunction with an
`
`RFID system (as are the other components of ‘O5 7).
`
`2.
`
`Subramanian Shows Every Element of Independent Claim 1
`
`The preamble of independent claim 1 of ‘057 recites “an inventory tracking
`
`system for use in tracking placement of physical items within an inventory tracking
`
`‘)5
`
`region.
`
`The term “inventory tracking system” appears only in the preamble and
`
`recites no structure or limitations apart from those recited in the body of the claim
`
`and should not be given any patentable weight. MPEP § 2111.02. Further, the
`
`clause “for use in tracking placement of physical
`
`items within an inventory
`
`16
`
`

`
`tracking region” states the intended use or purpose of the inventory tracking
`
`system and likewise should be given no patentable weight. MPEP § 2l 1 I .O2(II).4
`
`Independent claim 1 further recites “a radio frequency tag detection system
`
`including a plurality of radio frequency antennas disposed in a spaced apart
`
`manner within the inventory tracking region.
`
`Subramanian discloses “an RFID
`
`35
`
`tag reader system 100 deployed in a controlled area 160
`
`includ[ing] a plurality
`
`of RFID tag readers
`
`positioned in fixed locations throughout the controlled area
`
`160[.]”
`
`Ex.
`
`1006 ‘M 0019-0020, FIG. 1.
`
`Subramanian further discloses
`
`“directional antennas included in RFID tag readers” and FIG. 3 depicts an antenna
`
`in the RFID tag reader. Id. ‘H 0021, FIG. 3. It is known in the art that an RFID tag
`
`reader system detects radio frequency tags and thus is a radio frequency tag
`
`detection system.
`
`The controlled area of Subramanian is “defined, for example,
`
`by one or more walls
`
`a ceiling, and a floor” and FIG. 1 of Subramanian depicts
`
`a plurality of “RFID tag readers 101409 disposed in a spaced apart manner within
`
`a controlled area 160.” Ex. 1006 1] 0020, FIG. 1. Because inventory tracking
`
`region as used in ‘057 means a location or area within a building or facility, the
`
`controlled area of Subramanian discloses the inventory tracking region of ‘057.
`
`4 To the extent the preamble is deemed to have any patentable weight, corresponding
`disclosure in the prior art is identified in the claims chart. See Attachment C.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Subramanian therefore discloses a radio firequency tag detection system including
`
`a plurality of radio frequency antennas disposed in a spaced apart manner within
`
`the inventory tracking region.
`
`Independent claim 1 further recites “a detection controller coupled to the
`
`plurality of radio frequency antennas, the detection controller including a beam-
`
`steering control system that controls the operation of each of the radio frequency
`
`antennas.” Subramanian discloses that “the RFID tag reader includes an RFID tag
`
`reader controller 312” which is depicted in FIG. 3 of Subramanian as being part of
`
`an RFID tag reader and coupled to a radio frequency antenna through a
`
`transmitter/receiver. Ex. 1006 fl 0032, FIG. 3. The RFID detection controller of
`
`Subramanian “executes an RFID tag detection algorithm” which includes
`
`“invoking transmitter 318 to transmit a tag interrogation signal 345 via antenna
`
`314 and attempting to detect a tag response signal 345 from an RFID tag 350 via
`
`antenna 314 and receiver 317.” Ex. 1006 W 0033, 0036. Subramanian discloses
`
`“each directional antenna is coupled with a drive system” which is “configured to
`
`change the physical orientation of the directional antenna
`
`to cause each
`
`detection beam to be rotated across an entire detection area” using a “drive system
`
`controller 308,” and FIG. 3 depicts one such drive system and drive system
`
`controller coupled to the antenna of an RFID tag reader. Ex. 1006 W 0022, 0040.
`
`The RFID tag reader,
`
`transmitter,
`
`receiver, drive system, and drive system
`
`18
`
`

`
`controller comprise the detection controller of ‘057, and Subramanian discloses
`
`that each of these components is associated with an antenna in the plurality of
`
`antennas (i. (2., these components are found in each RFID tag reader, each of which
`
`includes an antenna).5 Subramanian thus shows a detection controller coupled to
`
`the plurality of radio frequency antennas,
`
`the ‘detection controller including a
`
`beam~sz‘eering control system that controls the operation of each of the radio
`
`frequency antenna.
`
`Independent claim 1 further recites “one of the plurality of radio frequency
`
`antennas uses a beam to scan a portion of the inventory tracking region to detect a
`
`current physical location of one or more radio frequency tags disposed in a scanned
`
`portion of the inventory tracking region wherein the current physical location
`
`corresponds to a position defined by two coordinate units in a multi—dimensional
`
`coordinate system and the value of each of the two coordinate units is determined
`
`by the one of the plurality of radio frequency antennas.
`
`Subramanian discloses
`
`97
`
`“[e]ach RFID tag reader is configured to detect the presence of any RFID tags 120
`
`that are located within a detection area associated with the RFID tag reader” and,
`
`because the beam width is narrower than the detection area, “the orientation of the
`
`5 Recall that the detection controller of ‘057 causes RFID antennas to emit beams and
`
`receive signals, and determines the location of responding RFID tags. A detection controller
`may be a plurality of devices each associated with a different antenna or antenna system. See
`supra at 11-12, Section IV.A.3.
`
`19
`
`

`
`directional antenna of RFID tag reader 105 may be dynamically adjusted to ensure
`
`that the detect beam 125 pans across and through substantially all of the detection
`
`area 115.” EX. 1006 1] 0021. The detection area is depicted in FIG. l as a sub-
`
`region of the controlled area (i. e., the inventory tracking region of ‘057), and thus
`
`shows the Scanned portion of the inventory tracking area. Subramanian further
`
`recites that “external system processor 332 may be capable of determining specific
`
`physical locations of various articles (i.e. of various RFID tags attached to the
`
`articles)?’ Ex. 1006 fil 0051. This is done using a “geometric analysis
`
`using the
`
`angular orientation data for the RFID tag and the known physical location of the
`
`RFID tag reader system 300 to determine, at least, a direction in which antenna
`
`314 was pointing at the time when RFID tag was detected by the RFID tag reader
`
`system 300.” Id. The RFID tag reader system has just one antenna. Ex. 1006
`
`1[ 0032 (“RFID tag reader includes an RFID tag reader controller 312, an antenna
`
`314
`
`configured to receive RF sig