Ex Parte Bliding et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 201411723088 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte OLLE BLIDING, LARS KNUTSSON, and JOHAN HORBERG ____________________ Appeal 2012-0016841 Application 11/723,088 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-12. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for controlling a locking mechanism in a lock device (140) for use in a home security system. In particular, upon detecting an input signal including a knock, a wakeup unit (320) containing an acoustic/vibration sensor (324) sends a wakeup signal 1 The real party in interest is PHONIRO AB. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2012-001684 Application 11/723,088 2 (326) (114) to a controller (313), which in turn sends a Bluetooth signal to a mobile device (100) to lock or unlock a designated door (150). Figs. 1-3, Spec. 11:16-29. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. A lock device for controlling a lock mechanism in a lock, said lock device having a sleep mode and an operational mode, said lock device comprising: circuitry for short-range wireless data communication with a key device; a controller, said controller being adapted, in said operational mode, to authenticate said key device in order to decide whether or not to unlock said lock; and a wake-up device for generating a control signal to said controller to cause exit from said sleep mode and entry into said operational mode, said wake-up device including a sensor for detecting an input signal, that comprises at least one knock, and electrical circuitry for processing the detected input signal and generating said control signal. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Salem US 4,197,524 Apr. 8, 1980 Kulha US 5,973,611 Oct. 26, 1999 Appeal 2012-001684 Application 11/723,088 3 Fukumoto US 6,912,287 B1 June 28, 2005 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 as follows: Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kulha and Salem. Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kulha, Salem, and Fukumoto. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 11-20, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-7.2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in finding Kuhla and Salem are properly combined to teach or suggest a lock device having a sensor for detecting a knock as an input signal, as recited in claim 1? The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to substitute Salem’s acoustic sensor for Kuhla’s Doppler sensors because such substitution would enable the system to detect a knock as an input signal 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 06, 2011), the Reply Brief (filed October 18, 2011), and the Answer (mailed August 22, 2011) for their respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-001684 Application 11/723,088 4 thereby indicating that the knocking individual is present near the lock. Ans. 8. Therefore, the Examiner concludes the proposed substitution would eliminate inadvertent unlocking as well as increase the battery life in the vehicle controller. Id. at 10-11. In response, Appellants argue the proposed combination is improper because substituting Salem’s acoustic sensor for Kuhla’s Doppler sensor teaches away from the invention, and would render Salem’s system unfit for its intended hands-free remote entry of a vehicle by requiring the user to knock on the vehicle door to gain entry therein. App. Br. 13-15. On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Although the disclosure of Salem relied upon teaches an acoustic sensor for detecting a knock as an input signal to a lock system, we agree with the Appellants that the proposed substitution of Salem’s acoustic sensor for Kuhla’s sensor would cause Kuhla’s vehicle door to be unlocked only via a recognized knock pattern input, and no longer by its intended hand free mechanism.3 Accordingly, because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need 3 We leave to the Examiner to determine whether the proffered combination would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations under an alternative theory of obviousness. In particular, instead of substituting one sensor for the other, the Examiner may consider modifying Kuhla’s system to add Salem’s acoustic sensor thereto thereby allowing the Kuhla’s vehicle to be capable of both hands-free entry, as well as entry via a knock as an input signal. This suggested combination would thereby yield a system with enhanced vehicle capabilities, which would not do away with either method of entry taught by the references. Appeal 2012-001684 Application 11/723,088 5 not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Therefore, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuhla and Salem. Because claims 2-12 recite commensurate limitations as those in claim 1 discussed above, Appellants have similarly shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-12 as set forth above. REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation