Ex Parte DenisonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201813182891 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation