Ex Parte Lakamraju et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

13263243 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/263,243 10/06/2011 Vijaya R. Lakamraju PA0009646U-U71.12-41KL 6700
87059 7590 12/01/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
SYED, NABIL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJAYA R. LAKAMRAJU, JOHN M. MILTON-BENOIT,
ULF J. JONSSON, and JOSEPH ZACCHIO
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—10, and 12—23, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify UTC Fire and Security Corp. as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
power management circuitry to minimize power consumption by an
electronic door lock circuit. Spec. I.2
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
1. A power management circuit for an electronic door lock,
the circuit comprising:
ON/OFF circuit operably connected to generate an initial
enable signal in response to a detected keycard;
a load switch circuit having an operating state determined
by the initial enable signal, wherein in response to the initial
enable signal representing a detected keycard the load switch
circuit is enabled to provide a dc output voltage, wherein if no
initial enable signal is present the load switch circuit is disabled
such that no dc output voltage is provided', and
an electronic door lock circuit operably connected to
receive dc power when the load switch circuit is enabled,
wherein the electronic door lock circuit receives identification
input from a keycard reader and generates in response an output
that is provided to a locking mechanism, wherein in response to
completing a keycard detection operation the electronic door
lock circuit generates a turn-off signal that is provided in
feedback to the ON/OFF circuit to disable the load switch circuit;
wherein the ON/OFF circuit includes a switch connected
between a dc input and the load switch circuit, wherein the initial
enable signal is generated in response to a keycard mechanically
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed July 14, 2014 (“Final
Act.”); Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Jan. 14, 2015 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 16, 2015 (“Ans.”); and, the original Specification filed
Oct. 6, 2011 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
contacting and closing the switch such that the dc input is
provided to enable the load switch circuit.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2003/0137399 Al; published July 24,
2003) (“Bauer”), Denison et al. (US 2005/0077998 Al; published Apr. 14,
2005) (“Denison”), and Levasseur (US 5,892,298; issued Apr. 6, 1999) or
Somes (US 4,519,228; issued May 28, 1985). Final Act. 2—5.
Claims 3, 4, 12, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bauer, Denison, Levasseur (or Somes), and
Connors et al. (US 2005/0093374 Al; published May 5, 2005) (“Connors”).
Final Act. 5—7.
Claims 7, 8, 14—16, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bauer, Denison, Levasseur (or Somes),
and Wiemeyer (US 2005/0195067 Al; published Sept. 8, 2005). Final Act.
7.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bauer, Denison, Levasseur (or Somes), and Jung et
al. (US 2008/0136594 Al; published June 12, 2008) (“Jung”). Final Act. 7—
8.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bauer, Denison, Levasseur (or Somes), and Chun (US
2005/0032490 Al; published Feb. 10, 2005). Final Act. 8—9.
3
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2—9) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4—10), and we
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we
consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief.
Rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 103 under § 103(a)
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue “neither Bauer nor Denison
discloses ‘wherein if no initial enable signal is present the load switch circuit
is disabled such that no dc output voltage is provided; and an electronic door
lock circuit operably connected to receive dc power when the load switch
circuit is enabled,”’ as recited in claim 1, because “[t]he electronic door lock
circuits in Bauer and Denison both require some power drain, even in sleep
mode.” Br. 5. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, we agree with
the Examiner that Bauer teaches the disputed limitations of claim 1. See
Ans. 4 (citing Bauer || 27—28, Fig. 3). Second, Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive because neither the disputed limitations, nor any other
limitations, of claim 1 recite there is “no power drain” in the sleep mode or
when the load switch circuit is disabled. In re Self 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (“[Ajppellanf s arguments fail from the outset because . . .
they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”).
3 These claims are rejected under the first-stated ground of rejection listed
above.
4
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
Regarding claim 10, Appellants argue “neither Bauer nor Denison
discloses ‘operating an electronic door lock circuit in a no power mode in
which a load switch circuit is disabled to prevent power from being supplied
to the electronic door lock circuit,’” because the circuits in Bauer and
Dennison “both require some power drain, even in sleep mode.” See Br. 6—
7. For the same reasons discussed supra regarding claim 1, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding claim 10.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 10. We
also sustain the rejection of claims 4, 7, and 9, and claim 15, which depend
from claims 1 and 10, respectively, and are not separately argued. Because
we sustain the rejection of claim 10, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 14, which Appellants argue is patentable by virtue of dependency
on claim 10. Id. at 10—11.
Rejection of Claim 3, 12, and 174 under § 103(a)
Regarding claim 3, Appellants argue Connors does not disclose
“electronic door lock circuit, in response to receiving dc power from the load
switch circuit provides an enable signal to the input of the load switch circuit
to maintain the load switch circuit in the enabled state after the switch is
opened in response to the keycard being removed.” Br. 7. Appellants also
argue the Examiner erred by stating the improvement of Connors “could” be
applied to the combined process of Bauer and Denison because “[t]he
Examiner must establish that one of ordinary skill in the art ‘would’
combine the teachings of the references.” Id. at 8.
4 These claims are rejected under the second-stated ground of rejection listed
above.
5
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred. First, Appellants attack Connors individually and fail to address the
Examiner’s actual rejection to establish an insufficiency in the combined
teachings of the references. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Bauer,
Connors, Denison, and Fevasseur teach or suggest the disputed limitation of
claim 3. See Final Act. 3—7; Ans. 5—6 (citing Bauer || 27, 28, 30; Connors
23—24, Figs. 1, 2; Fevasseur 2:51—65, Fig. 1). In particular, the Examiner
finds Bauer5 teaches “that the electronic door lock circuit (microcontroller
38), in response to receiving dc power from the load switch circuit (via high-
side switch 60) provides an enable signal to the input of the load switch
circuit to maintain the load switch circuit in enabled state after the switch is
opened.” Ans. 5. The Examiner finds Connors teaches
that an electronic circuitry 112 in response to receiving a dc
power from a power control circuit (load switch) provides an
enable signal to the input of the power control circuit to maintain
the power control circuit 116 in enabled state and after the power
is removed from the power control circuit, such that the power
control circuit is maintained in the enabled state until the
5 In line 9 on page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner mistakenly refers to
Denison instead of Bauer.
6
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
circuitry 112 has completed an operation and generates a turn­
off signal.
Id. at 6 (citing Connors 23—24, Figs. 1, 2). Appellants did not file a Reply
Brief and have not rebutted these findings. Thus, for the reasons stated by
the Examiner, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s findings that the combined teachings of the references teach or
suggest the disputed limitation of claim 3.
Second, regarding the combination of the references, the Examiner
finds as follows:
Connors discloses that a power control circuit is used to
substantially disconnect a power source from a circuit in an off
mode for minimizing power consumption in the off mode. So it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to modify the combination of Bauer, Denison, Levasseu[r] (or
Somes) to include the functionality of keeping the
microcontroller in the ON state by keeping the power control
circuit active until the microcontroller performs one or more
predetermined functions as taught by Connors (see paragraphs
[0023]-[0024]) in order to extend the battery life.
Ans. 6.
The Examiner also finds the results of applying Connors to the
combination of Bauer and Denison “would have been predictable and
resulted in maintaining a switch in the on state until the circuitry performs a
predetermined operation.” Final Act. 6; Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted). Thus,
we find the Examiner provides sufficient articulated reasoning having a
rational underpinning, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Connors, Bauer, Denison,
and Levasseur so as to render obvious the subject matter of claim 3. See
KSRInt'l Co. v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
7
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
Regarding claim 12, Appellants argue:
There is no citation to where Connors discloses “applying a dc
output provided by the electronic door lock circuit in feedback to
the enable pin of the load switch circuit to maintain the load
switch circuit in the enabled state during the determination of
whether the electronic door lock should be unlocked.”
Br. 8—9. Regarding claim 17, Appellants argue,
There is no citation to where Connors discloses “a load switch
circuit having an operating state determined by a signal applied
to an enable pin of the load switch circuit[,]” the interaction of
the detected keycard to the enable pin or the interaction of the
microcontroller with the enable pin, all recited in claim 17.
Br. 9-10. For the same reasons discussed supra regarding claim 3, we are
not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 12 and 17.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 12, and 17, as
well as the rejection of claim 23, which depends from claim 17 and is not
separately argued. See id. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 17, we
also sustain the rejection of claim 22, which Appellants argue is patentable
by virtue of dependency on claim 17. See Br. 12.
Rejection of Claim 8, 16, and 216 under § 103(a)
Regarding claim 8, Appellants argue Wiemeyer does not teach “dc
power to a keycard reader that is selectively removed in response to
identification data being received from the keycard reader” because it does
not teach the conditional statement that power to the keycard reader is
“selectively removed.” Br. 10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Wiemeyer teaches
6 These claims are rejected under the third-stated ground of rejection listed
above.
8
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
selectively removing the power in response to data being received from the
reader because Wiemeyer teaches “the microprocessor 230 enables the
supply of batter[y] operating power to the token reader 210 and receives the
read token data. The microprocessor then removes operating power from
the reader 2[]10.” Ans. 7 (citing Wiemeyer || 9—24). Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Appellants argue that Wiemeyer does not
disclose the order of events in the limitation reciting “selectively removing
power from the keycard reader subsequent to receiving data retrieved from
the keycard but prior to generating the self turn-off signal.” Br. 11.
Appellants make the same argument in regard to claim 21, which recites a
substantially similar limitation to the limitation of claim 16. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they attack Wiemeyer
individually, rather than the combined teachings of Bauer, Denison, and
Wiemeyer on which the Examiner’s rejection is based. See Final Act. 3—4, 7
(citing Bauer 128, Fig. 3; Denison | 81, Figs. 6, 7); Ans. 9—10 (citing
Wiemeyer || 9, 24); see In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For the reasons
stated by the Examiner, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Bauer, Denison, and
Wiemeyer teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 16 and 21.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 21.
Rejection of Claims 5, 6, 13, 18, and 197 under § 103(a)
Appellants argue (1) claims 5 and 6 are patentable by virtue of
dependency on claim 1, (2) clam 13 is patentable by virtue of dependency on
7 These claims are rejected under the fourth-stated ground of rejection listed
above.
9
Appeal 2015-007737
Application 13/263,243
claim 10, and (3) claims 18 and 19 are patentable by virtue of dependency
on claim 17. See Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
because, for the reasons discussed supra regarding claims 1,10, and 17, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that claims 1,10, and 17 are not
patentable over the combination of the cited references. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, 18, and 19.
Rejection of Claim 208 under § 103(a)
Appellants argue that claim 20 is patentable by virtue of dependency
on claim 17. See Br. 13. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
because, for the reasons discussed supra regarding claim 17, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that claim 17 is not patentable over the combination
of the cited references. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—10, and 12—23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
Claim 20 is rejected under the fifth-stated ground of rejection listed above.
10