Ex Parte DeBlaey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12862357 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

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