Ex Parte BUER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12210013 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
12/210,013 09/12/2008 Mark BUER 2875.1880001 5675
49579 7590 02/01/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
HEWITT II, CALVIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK BUER
Appeal 2015-001320
Application 12/210,013
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’
final decision rejecting claims 1—32. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant appeared for an oral hearing on
January 10, 2017.
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-001320
Application 12/210,013
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A mesh grid protection system, comprising:
a plurality of grid lines forming a mesh grid proximate to
operational logic; and
tamper-detection logic coupled to the plurality of grid
lines and configured to toggle a polarity of a signal on at least
one grid line at each clock cycle and to detect attempts to access
the operational logic by comparing a reference signal driving a
first end of a grid line to a signal at the opposite end of the grid
line.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 14—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, 10, 12, 1^18-21, 22, 2A-26, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Doi (US 7,723,998 B2, iss. May 25, 2010)
and Verma (US 4,833,618, iss. May 23, 1989).
3. Claims 3 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Doi,
Verma, and Turner (US 2007/0155328 Al, pub. July 5, 2007).
4. Claims 8, 11, 13, 27, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Doi, Verma, and Silverbrook (US 2007/0011023 Al, pub. Jan. 11,
2007).
5. Claims 1—13 and 21—32 alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Doi.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea?
2
Appeal 2015-001320
Application 12/210,013
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
because the prior art does not disclose a logic to detect attempts to access the
operational logic by comparing a reference signal driving a first end of a grid
line to a signal at the opposite end of the grid line?
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
We will not sustain this rejection of claims 14—20 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter because we agree with the Appellant that the claims
are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner is of the opinion that the
claims recite purely mental steps (Final Act. 4). Appellant argue that
generating a signal indicating an attempt to access operational logic
proximate to the mesh grid is not an abstract idea or a mental step (Appeal
Br. 11). We agree with the Appellant that the signal is generated by
electronic components in a circuit and thus is not a mental step.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
The Appellant argues that neither Doi nor Verma discloses logic to
detect attempts to access the operational logic by comparing a reference
signal driving a first end of a grid line to a signal at the opposite end of the
grid line (Appeal Br. 12—17).
In the Final Action, the Examiner relies on Verma at column 4, lines
30-31, 43—68, and column 5, lines 3—7 for teaching this subject matter (Final
Act. 6—7). We find that column 4, lines 30-31 of Verma disclose a sensor
assembly that provides tamper proofing functions. Column 4, lines 43—68
disclose that signal lines 80 and 82 extend from gas meter sensor line 50A
3
Appeal 2015-001320
Application 12/210,013
and 50B to pins Pl-1 and P1-0 of microprocessor 62 and are designed such
that at all times they will be of opposite polarities. If the lines are tampered
with whereby one line is either shorted to the other or disconnected, the
polarities of the lines will not be different at all times. Column 5, lines 3—7
disclose that lines 84 and 86 have the same tamper detection mechanism as
lines 80 and 82. As such, Verma discloses that the polarity of each line is
compared to the other line to detect tampering. However, Verma does not
disclose that the reference signal driving a first end of a line is compared to
the signal at the opposite end of the same grid line as required by claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2—13 dependent therefrom. We will also not sustain
the rejections of claim 14 and claims 15-18 and 20 dependent therefrom and
claim 21 and claims 22—27 and 30—32 dependent therefrom because each of
these claims requires comparing a reference signal at a first end of a line to a
signal on the opposite end of the same grid line.
Rejection under 35 U. S. C. § 102
The Examiner does not specifically address the recitation in the claims
of comparing a reference signal at a first end of a grid line to a signal at the
opposite end of the grid line and how such recitation is disclosed in Doi in
this rejection. We note that on page 6 of the Final Action, the Examiner
admits that Doi does not disclose this subject matter. In the Answer, the
Examiner finds that Doi teaches this subject matter at column 5, lines 51—56
and column 7, lines 25—45 by teaching that a reference signal is checked to
ensure that it is in its correct state (Ans. 10). Although the Examiner is
correct that Doi teaches that a reference signal is checked to ensure that it is
4
Appeal 2015-001320
Application 12/210,013
in its correct state, this is not a teaching that a reference signal at one end of
a line is compared to the signal at the opposite end of the same line.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and claims 2—13 dependent therefrom because the rejection of these claims
relies on Doi for teaching the subject matter discussed above. We will also
not sustain the rejections of claims 21-32 for the same reasons. .
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
5