Ex Parte Fedronic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2016

11856549 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111856,549 09/17/2007 101221 7590 03/28/2016 Muirhead and Satumelli, LLC 200 Friberg Parkway, Suite 1001 Westborough, MA 01581 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dominique Louis Joseph Fedronic 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. AIM-214USCON1 9217 EXAMINER HAILU, TESHOME ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2016 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 DOMINIQUE LOUIS JOSEPH FEDRONIC and WU WEN Appeal2014-001619 Application 11/856,549 Technology Center 2400 Before: ELENI 1\vLAJ\.JTIS 1\1ERCADER, NOR1\1AN H. BEA1\1ER, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-001619 Application 11/856,549 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-12, 14--31, and 33-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to an entry control system wherein an authentication transaction and an electromechanical circuit, when energized, allows physical access to a protected area (Spec. 13). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for physically controlling access to a protected location, compnsmg: establishing a secure communications connection over a network between a security controller and at least an authentication server; operatively coupling a security token to said security controller; sending a critical security parameter from said security token to said security controller for authentication; sending said critical security parameter to at least said authentication server via said secure communications connection; performing an authentication transaction by said authentication server for said critical security parameter; sending a result of said authentication transaction from said authentication server to said security controller via said secure communications connection; and energizing an electromechanical circuit coupled to and controlled by said security controller if said result is affirmative of said authentication transaction being successful, wherein energizing said electromechanical circuit is limited to a pre-established duration specific to said security token to control opening of a physical access gateway and wherein the duration corresponds to an amount of time the physical access gateway is open in a single instance. 2 Appeal2014-001619 Application 11/856,549 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Loosmore et al. Doyle et al. Kang et al. US 5,682, 142 Oct. 28, 1997 US 2002/0095587 Al July 18, 2002 US 2003/0006879 Al Jan. 9, 2003 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-12, 14--31, and 33-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Loosmore and further in view of Kang. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Loosmore and Kang teaches the limitation of "energizing said electromechanical circuit is limited to a pre-established duration specific to said security token to control opening of a physical access gateway and wherein the duration corresponds to an amount of time the physical access gateway is open in a single instance," as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the claimed invention provides for maintaining the physical door in an open state for a predetermined amount of time corresponding to an amount of time that the door may be open in a single instance (App. Br. 15). Appellants assert that Kang, on the other hand, only 3 Appeal2014-001619 Application 11/856,549 discloses cancelling an unlock operation if, after receiving the unlock command, the door is not actually opened (App. Br. 15). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Loosmore teaches "'energizing said electromechanical circuit specific to said security token to control opening of a physical access gateway' as, (col. 6, 11. 1-15 of Loosmore, tags receive this message and respond with their security level, in order to determine whether the employee is authorized to enter[)]" (Ans. 10). When validated by correct security levels on the tag or by the use of a PIN, the Fixed Position Node (FPN) output means causes the door to open for entry (Ans. 10-11). We agree with the Examiner's finding that at the time of entrance, each employee scans their tag and sends their security level in order to get access to enter the building and if their security level is validated by the FPN, the FPN output means causes the door to be open for an entry (i.e., energizing said electromechanical circuit to control opening of a physical access gateway) (Ans. 10-11). While the Examiner relies on Kang for the claim limitation of ''pre- established duration corresponds to an amount of time the physical access gateway is open in a single instance" (Ans. 11 ), we note that one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have reasonably made the access to the employee gateway for a "pre-established duration" of such length to allow the authorized user to enter the secure location. One skilled in the art would not make such a duration variable as that would not allow predictability of the time the gate is open causing unnecessary anxiety to the authorized user who would not be able to anticipate how much time is allowed for safe entry. In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter claimed because 4 Appeal2014-001619 Application 11/856,549 inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Kang discloses, ''pre-established duration corresponds to an amount of time the physical access gateway is open in a single instance," because in the unlocking state, if a door open/close detecting switch (1140) reports that the door is not opened within a predetermined time, door locking unit (1300) automatically closes the door and main unit (1100) outputs door locking message through a speaker (Ans. 11; i-fi-f 184--185). We agree with the Examiner that a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim word "open" covers an "unlocked state" (Ans. 11 ). The claim language and the Specification is silent in mentioning what "open" means and therefore, the Examiner correctly interprets the word "open" as the unlocking state of Kang (Ans. 11). According to Kang, if the door open/close detecting switch detects that the door is in the unlocked state for ten seconds then it reports to the locking unit and the locking unit automatically closes the door (Ans. 11 ). Therefore, Kang discloses the claimed pre-established duration corresponds to an amount of time the gateway is open in a single instance as detecting by the door open/ close detecting switch whether the door is in unlocking state for ten seconds (App. Br. 11 ). As previously stated, one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have designed the system to allow a user to have access for a predetermined time, whether that is to allow a user to enter or to lock the access after the predetermined time expired if the user did not enter or 5 Appeal2014-001619 Application 11/856,549 unlock the secured access. As we previously stated, a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Appellants further argue that none of the cited reference teach the desirability of using the security mechanisms of Doyle and/or Loosmore for physical access control and Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not apply the technology of Doyle and/or Loosmore to solve the problems of physical access control that are solved by the claimed invention (App. Br. 16). We note it is sufficient that references suggest doing what Appellants did, although the Appellants' particular purpose was different from that of the references. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538-39 (CCPA 1967)). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2, 4, 8-12, 14--31, and 33-36, which are not argued separately. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Loosmore and Kang teach the limitation of "energizing said electromechanical circuit is limited to a pre-established duration specific to said security token to control opening of a physical access gateway and wherein the duration corresponds to an amount of time the physical access gateway is open in a single instance," as recited in claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8- 12, 14--31, and 33-36 is affirmed. 6 Appeal2014-001619 Application 11/856,549 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7