Ex Parte Denison

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

13182891 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/182,891 07/14/2011
7590
Phillip M. Pippenger
Miller, Matthias & Hull
Suite 2350
One North Franklin Street
Chicago, IL 60606
03/27/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William D. Denison
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.
60017 /50004 7258
EXAMINER
KHAN,OMERS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM D. DENISON 1
Appeal2017-007273
Application 13/182,891
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 77-116 and 118-141, which are all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Micro Enhanced
Technologies, Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007273
Application 13/182,891
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to an electronic access control system
that includes an access device, a control device, and a server. Spec. iii! 5-15.
Claim 90 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
90. An electronic access control system for accessing an
enclosure, comprising:
an access device configured to control access to an
enclosure or a secured area;
a control device configured for accessing the access
device, wherein the control device is configured to establish a
first communication link over a wide area network with a
server, said first communication link operating at a first
frequency configured to initiate communication with the server
to communicate a parameter from the server to the control
device for enabling operation of the control device; and
the control device being further configured to establish a
second communication link with an access device, said second
communication link operating at a second frequency different
from the first frequency, the control device being further
configured to communicate one or more encrypted messages
comprising a plurality of mutually distinct identifiers to the
access device, wherein the access device is further configured
to determine whether or not to provide access to the enclosure.
The Examiner's Rejections2
Claims 77-115 and 129-141 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
2 The Examiner withdrew all rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, and one rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, in
the Answer. Ans. 15-16.
2
Appeal2017-007273
Application 13/182,891
distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the
invention. Ans. 2--4.
Claims 77, 81, 82, 86-90, 94, 99-103, 107, 112-1163, 118, 125-129,
133, 134, and 138-141 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Khalil (US 2006/0038654 Al; Feb. 23, 2006) and
Takayama et al. (US 2004/0039919 Al; Feb. 26, 2004). Final Act. 9-16.
Claims 78-80, 91-93, 104-106, 119-121, and 130-132 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khalil, Takayama, and Man
et al. (US 2005/0017906 Al; Jan. 27, 2005). Final Act. 16-18.
Claims 83-85, 96-98, 109-111, 122-124, and 135-137 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khalil, Takayama, and
Rosenblum et al. (US 2006/0047692 Al; Mar. 2, 2006). Final Act. 18-19.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness- Claims 90, 103, 129
Claim 90 recites, in relevant part, "an access device for providing
access to an enclosure or a secured area." The Examiner concludes claim 90
is indefinite because it is "unclear" whether the access code is "being
provided to an enclosure or a secured area." Final Act. 8.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because the claim recites
"simple, clear English." Br. 8. 4 According to Appellant, the claims recite
controlling access to something, and that something is either a secured area
or a controller. Id.
3 The Examiner's rejection
4 Appellant's Appeal Brief does not include page numbers. We nevertheless
refer to the Brief' s pages in the order that they appear in the record.
3
Appeal2017-007273
Application 13/182,891
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error because the disputed
limitation is sufficiently clear. Claim 90 recites "an access device
configured to control access to an enclosure or a secured area."
Accordingly, the access device is configured to control access to one of two
things: an enclosure or a secured area. The Examiner's rejection fails to
identify any indefiniteness in the claim limitations, and we disagree with the
Examiner's conclusion.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
90 as indefinite with respect to the limitation "an access device configured to
control access to an enclosure or a secured area." We also do not sustain the
similar rejection of independent claims 103 and 129, which recite
commensurate limitations, or dependent claims 91-102, 104-115, and 130-
141.
Indefiniteness - Claims 77, 90, 103, 129
Claim 77 recites, in relevant part, "[a]n electronic access control
system for accessing an enclosure, comprising: an access device for
providing access to an enclosure." The Examiner concludes claim 77 is
indefinite because there is an improper antecedent basis for the second
recitation of "an enclosure," which is first introduced in the preamble. Final
Act. 8.
Appellant does not argue the Examiner's rejection is in error, stating
that "[a ]lthough no confusion is seen, Applicant would be happy to have the
claims amended to resolve this clerical issue [if] such is deemed necessary."
Br. 9. Because Appellant does not argue the Examiner's rejection is in error,
we summarily affirm the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection with respect to
the "an enclosure" limitation for claim 77, independent claims 90, 103, and
4
Appeal2017-007273
Application 13/182,891
129, which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 78-89,
91-102, 104-115, and 130-141.
Obviousness
We have reviewed the Examiner's obviousness rejections in light of
Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellant's contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner regarding the
obviousness rejections in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is
taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner regarding the
obviousness rejections in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief. We concur with the Examiner's conclusions regarding the
obviousness rejections. We highlight the following additional points.
Appellant argues all three obviousness rejections and every claim
rejected therein as a group. See Br. 10-11. We select claim 90 as
representative. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv )(2015).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 90 because
Khalil does not teach or suggest using different frequencies for first and
second communications links. Br. 10. In particular, Appellant argues Khalil
teaches one communication link between lock 12 and access point 14 and
this link uses frequency hopping. Id. In other words, according to
Appellant, this single link may use different frequencies, but Khalil does not
teach or suggest two communication links using two different frequencies.
Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Khalil teaches a communication link (the claimed
"second communication link") between lock station 12 (the claimed "access
5
Appeal2017-007273
Application 13/182,891
device") and access point hub 14 (the claimed "control device"). Ans. 26
(citing Khalil i-f 18). Khalil further teaches a communication link (the
claimed "first communication link") between access point hub 14 and
central controller 22 (the claimed "server"). Ans. 26 (citing Khalil i-f 22).
Khalil also teaches frequency hopping for communications between the
access point hub 14 and the lock station 12, as acknowledged by Appellant.
See Br. 10. However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Khalil further
teaches the communication method used between access point 14 and lock
station 12 may also be used for communication between access point 14 and
central controller 22. Ans. 27 (citing Khalil i-f 44). In other words,
communication between access point 14 and lock station 12 may use one
frequency while communication between access point 14 and central
controller 22 may use another frequency according to the cited frequency
hopping scheme. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in finding Khalil teaches the disputed limitations.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of independent claim 90 as
unpatentable over Khalil and Takayama. We also sustain the obviousness
rejections of independent claims 77, 103, 116, and 129, as well as dependent
claims 78-89, 91-94, 96-102, 104-107, 109-115, 118-128, and 130-141,
grouped therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 77-115, 126,
and 129-141under35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 77-94, 96-
107, 109-115, and 118-141under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2017-007273
Application 13/182,891
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l).
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7