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: IPR20 15-001 19
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,690,057
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1-.80 && 42.100-.123
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING TO PETITION THE BOARD FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW ............................................................................ .. 1
`
`A.
`
`the ‘O57 Patent May Be Contested by
`Certification that
`Petitioner ............................................................................................. .. 1
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review ............................................................... .. I
`
`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 ............................................................................ .. 5
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... .. 5
`C.
`PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .................................... .. 6
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. .. 6
`
`IV.
`
`I.
`2.
`3.
`
`Antenna, Antenna System, Antenna Element .......................... .. 6
`Inventory Tracking Region .................................................... .. l 1
`Detection Controller ............................................................... .. 12
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims 17 and 27 Are Anticipated ............................... .. 13
`l.
`The Prosecution History Shows All Elements of Claims
`l7 and 27 in Subramanian (EX. 1006) ................................... .. I3
`Subramanian (Ex. 1006) Shows Every Element of
`Independent Claims 17 and 27 ............................................... .. 17
`Hofer (Ex. 1007) Shows Every Element of Independent
`Claims 17 and 27 .................................................................... .. 25
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Husak (Ex. 1009) Shows Every Element of Independent
`Claims 17 and 27 .................................................................... .. 31
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`Dependent Claims 18-21, 23-26, and 28-30 Are Anticipated .......... .. 35
`Independent Claims 17 and 27 Are Obvious .................................... .. 39
`Dependent Claims 18-26 and 28-30 Are Obvious ........................... .. 41
`
`

`
`I. GROUNDS FOR STANDING TO PETITION THE BOARD FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.l04(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
`
`Petitioner certifies that
`
`it
`
`is not the patent owner and is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review of ‘O57. 37 C.F.R. § 42.101. 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(e)(l).
`
`Petitioner certifies that
`
`it has not been served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of ‘057. This Petition is timely pursuant to the America Invents
`
`Technical Corrections Act. See Pub. L. No. 112-274, § 1(d)(l) (Jan. 14, 2013).
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner has paid the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) by credit card at
`
`the time of filing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.l5(a). 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.
`
`1
`
`

`
`C. Mandatory Notices
`
`Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b), Petitioner provides the following notices.
`
`1.
`
`Real Party in Interest
`
`Per 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
`
`Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner is not aware of any other judicial
`
`matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding. Also,
`
`currently pending before the Board is Case No. lPR2014-01536, a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,690,057.
`
`In the above proceeding, Patent Owner (who is also the Patent Owner in this
`
`proceeding) disclosed the following as related matters, which may also be related
`
`matters in this proceeding:
`
`On February 26, 2014, U.S. Patent Application 14/190,453 was filed
`
`claiming priority as a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,690,057.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,690,057 claims priority as a continuation of PCT
`
`Application No. PCT/USI3/29408, which was filed on March 6, 2013.
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel
`
`Per 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
`(314) 444-7630
`
`Kirk A. Damman
`Reg. No. 42,461
`kdamman lewisricecom
`(314) 444-7783
`
`Benjamin J. Siders
`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 CHALLEN GED CLAIMS
`
`Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), claims 17-30 in the ‘057 patent are unpatentable
`
`as anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § l02(a), (b) and/or (e), and/or as obvious
`
`over the prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § l03(a). Specifically:
`
`(i)
`
`Independent claims 17 and 27 are anticipated under § 102(e) by U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/214,823 (Subramanian)
`
`(Ex. 1006), published as
`
`Publication No. US 2013/0049925 Al (Ex. 1021);
`
`(ii)
`
`Independent claims 17 and 27 are 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)
`
`Independent claims 17 and 27 are anticipated under § 102(b) by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,667,575 (Husak) (Ex. 1009);
`
`3
`
`

`
`(iv) Claims 17-21 and 23-30 are rendered obvious under §
`
`lO3(a) by
`
`Subramanian, Hofer, and/or Husak.
`
`(V)
`
`Claim 22 is rendered obvious under § lO3(a) by Subramanian in view
`
`of Taka/cu (Ex. 1010).
`
`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.
`
`13/857,616,
`
`(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
`
`Claim 1, 17, and 27 are the only independent claims in ‘057. Of these, only
`
`claims 17 and 27 are at issue in this Petition.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The field of the ‘O5 7 patent is identified therein as “using radio frequency
`
`identification (RFID) technology to advantageously track, manage and control the
`
`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, 1:22-27.
`
`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 skill 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 shall be given “its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.l00(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 Il.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 ‘057 patent, this term antenna is
`
`

`
`used to refer to both antenna systems and antenna elements. For example, in one
`
`section, ‘O5 7 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, 1629-12 (“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, ‘057 refers to an antenna system as
`
`both an antenna and an antenna system. Ex. 1001, 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
`
`7
`
`

`
`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}
`
`For example, the ‘O57 patent discloses:
`
`1 Petitioner appreciates that it 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 claims 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
`
`112. See MPEP § 2111.
`
`Petitioner further notes that 35 U.S.C. § 3l8(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.,
`
`IPR2013-00172, No. 8
`
`Institution Decision at 7 (PTAB July 29, 2013) (instructing Patent Owner to address deficiencies
`
`under § 112, paragraph four); IPR2012—O0001, No. 59 Final Decision (PTAB Nov. 13, 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”).
`
`

`
`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, l5:26-34 (emphasis added). The ‘O57 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, l6:4—l2 (emphasis added). The ‘O57 patent further discloses:
`
`[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 ‘O57 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 ‘O57 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
`
`other techniques are disclosed in ‘057, as they “are well known” and “not
`
`described in detail herein.” Ex. 1001, 15:-34-35.
`
`The ‘057 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
`
`10
`
`

`
`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. 20lO/0207738 11 0013 (Ex. 1011); Ex.
`
`lOOl,
`
`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-known in the art.
`
`2.
`
`Inventory Tracking Region
`
`The ‘O57 patent does not expressly define the term inventory tracking region
`
`and it appears only in the claims and summary. However, the usage of this term in
`
`‘O57 indicates that an inventory tracking region means an area or location within a
`
`building or facility inwhich 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. 100l, 13:36-42 (emphasis added). The
`
`11
`
`

`
`‘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 16:13-15, 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 term in ‘OS 7 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 algorithms
`
`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 ‘O57 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 ‘O57 patent further states the detection
`
`controller “operates to control or energize the antennas 24 to emit RFID detection
`
`12
`
`

`
`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,
`
`l5:9—l6. The ‘057
`
`patent
`
`further 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.” Ex. 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 ‘O57 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.
`
`1001, 15:46-49. Finally, ‘O57 states that an “RFID module” is also known as a
`
`“detection controller.” EX. 1001, l7:l0—l l.
`
`B. Independent Claims 17 and 27 Are Anticipated
`
`1.
`
`The Prosecution History Shows All Elements of Claims 17
`and 27 in Subramanian (Ex. 1006)
`
`As originally filed, the independent claims of ‘057 did not expressly recite
`
`that a single radio frequency antenna detected RFID tags disposed in an inventory
`
`tracking region. See Ex. 1002, Claims. As discussed above, the specification of
`
`13
`
`

`
`‘O57 enables only the use of triangulation to pinpoint physical location, which
`
`requires a plurality of spaced apart RFID antennas.
`
`In prosecution of ‘057, the Examiner raised U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/214,823, filed on August 22, 2011 by Subramanicm (Ex. 1006) as prior art
`
`under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § l02(e).
`
`Stated briefly, Subramanian 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 110012. Subramanian discloses that just one single RFID tag reader
`
`system (having just one antenna) may be sufficient to determine physical location,
`
`and that this determination may be “refined” through the use of one or more
`
`additional RFID tag readers. Ex. 1006 111] 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 location. 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 Subramcmicm]
`
`14
`
`

`
`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. l0l2, p. 12, citing Subramanian 1l005l.
`
`“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 ‘O57 on the basis of limitations that do not appear
`
`in the claim language. First, Patent Owner recognized that Subramanian can use a
`
`single antenna to determine the location 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,
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent Owner admitted in ‘O57 that such “detection techniques are well known.”2
`
`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
`
`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 ‘057).
`
`2 See supra note 1.
`
`16
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Shows Every Element
`1006)
`(Ex.
`Subramanian
`Independent Claims 17 and 27
`
`of
`
`Independent claims 17 and 27 are nearly identical, having only minor
`
`differences that do not materially impact the analysis used to measure them against
`
`the references raised herein. For sake of simplicity and clarity, independent claims
`
`17 and 27 are analyzed together.
`
`The preambles of independent claims 17 and 27 of the ‘057 patent both
`
`recite a “method of tracking inventory within an inventory region.” This term
`
`recites no structure, limitations, or method steps apart from those recited in the
`
`body of the claim and should not be given any patentable weight. MPEP
`
`§2111.02.3
`
`Independent claims 17 and 27 further recite “periodically scanning the
`
`inventory region with one or more radio frequency antennas using a beam steering
`
`scanning technique.” Subramanian discloses “an RFID 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
`
`111] 0019-0020, FIG. 1.
`
`Subramanian further discloses “directional antennas
`
`3 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
`
`

`
`included in RFID tag readers” and FIG. 3 depicts an antenna in the RFID tag
`
`reader.
`
`Id. 1] 0021, FIG. 3. 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 101-109 disposed in a
`
`spaced apart manner within a controlled area 160.” la’. 1] 0020, FIG. 1.
`
`Inventory
`
`tracking region as used in ‘057 means a location or area Within a building or
`
`facility, and thus the controlled area of Subramanian discloses the inventory
`
`tracking region of ‘057.
`
`Subramanian thus discloses scanning the inventory
`
`tracking region with one or more fiequency antennas.
`
`Subramanian further 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.
`
`Id. W 0022, 0040. Sabramanian further discloses that “RFID tag reader
`
`control information may include polling parameters, such as the times, frequencies,
`
`and/or durations of polling operations to be performed by the RFID readers[.]” Id.
`
`1] 0026. Subramanian further discloses that information stored in the external
`
`system about articles associated with an RFID tag that has not been detected for a
`
`period of time may be removed.
`
`Id.
`
`1] 0064. This inherently and implicitly
`
`18
`
`

`
`discloses that tag readers 101-109 of Subramanian periodically scan the inventory
`
`region. Subramanian thus shows periodically scanning the inventory region with
`
`one or more radio frequency antennas using a beam steering scanning technique.
`
`Independent claim 17 further recites “wherein one of the one or more radio
`
`frequency antennas scans a portion of the inventory region to detect one or more
`
`radio frequency tags disposed in a scanned portion of the inventory region, each of
`
`the one or more radio frequency tags being associated with an inventory item.”
`
`Independent claim 27 recites substantially identical language, the only difference
`
`being “each of the one or more radio frequency tags being associated with a
`
`diflerent inventory item.” Subramanian discloses “[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 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.”
`
`la’.
`
`11 0021. The detection area is depicted in FIG. 1 as a sub-region of the controlled
`
`area (i.e., the inventory tracking region of ‘057), and thus the detection area of
`
`Subramanian discloses the scanned portion of the inventory tracking area of the
`
`‘057 patent. Subramanian further discloses “The RFID tag 350 may be coupled
`
`with an article 352, such as an item of inventory.” Id.
`
`11 0037 (“[detecting] an
`
`19
`
`

`
`RFID tag 350 associated with (eg. attached to) a. particular article
`
`indicat[es]
`
`that an article 352 to which the RFID tag 350 is attached may be within a
`
`controlled area[.]”). The article of Subramanian discloses the inventory item of
`
`the ‘057 patent, and Subramanian thus discloses wherein one of the one or more
`
`radio frequency antennas scans a portion of the inventory region to detect one or
`
`more radio flequency tags disposed in a scanned portion of the inventory region,
`
`each of the one or more radio frequency tags being associated with an (or a
`
`different) inventory item.
`
`Independent claims 17 and 27 further recite “determining a current physical
`
`location for the one or more detected radio frequency tags in the scanned portion
`
`within the inventory region based on the detection of the one or more radio
`
`frequency tags within a scan.” Subramanian discloses 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)” Id.
`
`fll 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. Subramanian
`
`thus discloses determining a current physical location for the one or more detected
`
`20
`
`

`
`radio fiequency tags in the Scanned portion within the inventory region based on
`
`the detection of the one or more radio frequency tags within a scan.
`
`Independent claims 17 and 27 further recite “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 det