Ex Parte DeBlaeyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201612862357 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/862,357 08/24/2010 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 04/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ron DeBlaey 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. H0027604/4874/l 12927 3864 EXAMINER DARAMOLA, ISRAEL 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RON DEBLAEY Appeal2014-006057 Application 12/862,357 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to real-time configuration information as to a plurality of doors, which are part of an access control system. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal2014-006057 Application 12/862,357 1. An access control system comprising: door hardware communications circuitry that communicates with a plurality of door interfaces through a communication system, each of the plurality of door interfaces further comprising control circuits, hardware and software that locks and unlocks a respective door; configuration establishing circuitry which automatically discovers major elements of the access control system's configuration for each of the plurality of door interfaces including any readers connected to the door interfaces and receives information from the communications circuitry to determine which door interfaces are active and on-line and their status for any associated hardware; and display circuitry, which receives information from the configuration establishing circuitry and which visually presents door configuration information, in real time. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gokcebay Fufidio Kosaka Neely Vance us 6,000,609 US 2002/0067259 Al US 2008/0216156 Al US 2009/0070571 Al US 7,866,546 Bl REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Dec. 14, 1999 June 6, 2002 Sept. 4, 2008 Mar. 12, 2009 Jan. 11, 2011 (filed Apr. 19, 2007) Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fufidio in view of Gokcebay. Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fufidio in view of Gokcebay and further in view of Neely. 2 Appeal2014-006057 Application 12/862,357 Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kosaka in view of Vance. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kosaka, Vance, and further in view of Neely. ISSUES The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of 1. Fufidio in view of Gokcebay teaches the limitation of configuration establishing circuitry which automatically discovers major elements of the access control system's configuration for each of the plurality of door interfaces including any readers connected to the door interfaces and receives information from the communications circuitry to determine which door interfaces are active and on-line and their status for any associated hardware as recited in claim 1; and 2. Kosaka in view of Vance teaches the limitation of automatically discovering major components of an access control system having a plurality of doors through a communication system, each of the plurality of doors having a respective door interface, the respective door interface further comprising control circuits, hardware and software to lock and unlock the respective door of the interface as recited in claim 10. ANALYSIS Claims 1-9 Appellant argues that Fufidio teaches presence and motion detectors that automatically discover "individuals and objects within the zone 3 Appeal2014-006057 Application 12/862,357 immediately surrounding the secured portal" (para. 11 ); however, the discovery of physical objects surrounding a secured area is not the same as the claimed configuration establishing circuitry and especially "configuration establishing circuitry which automatically discovers major elements of the access control system's configuration" (App. Br. 6). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Fufidio teaches a portal access control system providing various output signal information to related security systems, including, for example: door position status to confirm whether the door is in an open or closed position; a door open time, indicating the period in which the door remained opened, and securing entry violations confirming that a transgression of the secure system has occurred (Ans. 13; para. 11). Thus, the status of the doors would include the interfaces necessary such as sensors considered "major elements" to be able to detect, for example, the status of the doors (Ans. 3). We also agree with the Examiner that "configuration establishing circuitry" is considered an aspect of any interface that is meant to read in a communication and allow for access (Ans. 3). These findings are consistent with Appellant's Specification (paras. 15-16) wherein door interfaces include contro 1 circuits, hardware, and software that lock and unlock respective doors (see App. Br. 3). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and the rejections of claims 2-9 not separately argued. Claims 10--13 Appellant argues that neither Kosaka nor Vance discloses a system capable of "automatically discovering major components of an access control system" as required by claims 10 and 11 (App. Br. 7). In particular, Appellant argues that Kosaka, paragraph 31, merely discloses an access 4 Appeal2014-006057 Application 12/862,357 controller that transmits access control instructions to an access control device 204 in response to card use (App. Br. 7-8). Similarly, paragraph 4 7 of Kosaka merely discloses the use of status messages and the context where "[a] communication failure is deemed to exist when these predefined message[ s] are not received within a prescribed timeframe" (Kosaka, paras. 43, 47). We do not agree with Appellant's argument. We agree with the Examiner; Kosaka teaches a security system that oversees any faults or issues that may take place within any access zone in a security system (Ans. 4, paras. 43, 47). We further agree with the Examiner that Appellant's argument regarding the definition of "capable of dynamically adapting to the availability of door controllers," is not commensurate in scope with the claim language (Ans. 4). We further agree with the Examiner that Kosaka teaches "the presence of smoke is an event which creates a parameter for the access controller to deny access to anyone trying to gain access through the card reader controlled doorway or allow access to special personnel otherwise denied access, such as firefighting personnel," which is a form of dynamic adaptation that takes place automatically as required by the claim (Ans. 5). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-13. Motivational argument and recognition of the problem Appellant further argues generally that there is no motivation to combine and there is no recognition of the problem solved by the invention (App. Br. 8-11). We do not agree with Appellant's argument. The Examiner provided respective motivational arguments not specifically challenged by Appellant. Furthermore, for a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the 5 Appeal2014-006057 Application 12/862,357 reference need not recognize the problem solved by the Appellant. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) ("The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious."). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of 1. Fufidio in view of Gokcebay teaches the limitation of configuration establishing circuitry which automatically discovers major elements of the access control system's configuration for each of the plurality of door interfaces including any readers connected to the door interfaces and receives information from the communications circuitry to determine which door interfaces are active and on-line and their status for any associated hardware as recited in claim 1; and 2. Kosaka in view of Vance teaches the limitation of automatically discovering major components of an access control system having a plurality of doors through a communication system, each of the plurality of doors having a respective door interface, the respective door interface further comprising control circuits, hardware and software to lock and unlock the respective door of the interface as recited in claim 10. 6 Appeal2014-006057 Application 12/862,357 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation