Ex Parte BUERDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201712210013 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation