Ex Parte Meissner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13501987 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
13/501,987 06/27/2012 Peter Meissner MEISSNER-2 5914
20151 7590 04/04/2017
HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
708 THIRD AVENUE
SUITE 1501
NEW YORK, NY 10017
EXAMINER
GALL, LLOYD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
INFO @ FEIEREISENLLC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER MEISSNER, and JOACHIM GILLERT
Appeal 2015-003665
Application 13/501,987
Technology Center 3600
Before ROBERT L. KINDER, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’
rejections of claims 5 and 7. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Assa Abloy
Sicherheitstechnik GmbH.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-003665
Application 13/501,987
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to a lock-key system, with a key
which can be inserted into a keyway of a locking cylinder.” (Spec. 11.)
Illustrative Claim
5. A lock-key system, comprising:
a flat key insertable into a keyway of a lock cylinder, said
flat key having a shaft, said shaft having side surfaces, said side
surfaces being provided with profilings formed as grooves and
elevations and extending in longitudinal direction along the
shaft, said profilings being provided with a lettering in the form
of at least one of impressions embossments, said lettering
comprising at least one member selected from the group
consisting of a letter, a number and a symbol; and
locking elements movable in a cylinder core of the lock
cylinder, said locking elements having contact surfaces which
correspond to the member and configured for interacting with
recesses provided in a cylinder housing of the lock cylinder
outside a separation plane between the cylinder core and the
cylinder housing, wherein the locking elements are configured
for tracing the member or at least a region of the member and at
least in part the profilings, and wherein a match resulting from
said tracing enables a turning of the cylinder core.
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph as indefinite. (Final Action 2.)
II. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Keller2 and Lou.3 (Final Action 3.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Keller, Lou, and Yun-Sheng.4 (Final Action 4.)
2 GB 2078843 A published Jan. 13, 1982.
3 US 6,615,628 B2 issued Sept. 9, 2003.
4 US 5,146,770 issued Sept. 15, 1992.
2
Appeal 2015-003665
Application 13/501,987
ANALYSIS
Claim 5 is the sole independent claim on appeal, with the only other
claim on appeal (i.e., claim 7) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) Independent claim 5 recites a “key” having side surfaces
provided with “profilings.” (Id.)
Rejection I
Independent claim 5 recites “least one of impressions embossments,”
“a symbol,” “grooves and elevations,” “at least one member,” and “the
member.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein
the member at least in part represents a registered trademark.” (Id.) The
Examiner determines that these recitals are “unclear,” and thus indefinite
pursuant to Section 112. (Final Action 2—3.)5
The Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading the Specification, would understand the meanings of these terms and
they “do[] not create uncertainty.” (Appeal Br. 4.) We are persuaded by the
Appellants’ argument because based upon the context of the claim language
in light of the Specification and the Appellants’ explanation on the record
we agree that the claim language at issue is not actually unclear.6 See In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The satisfactory response
5 The Examiner withdraws this rejection as it pertains to the claim term
“lock-key” being unclear. (See Answer 4.)
6 The Appellants explain, for example, that it is clear that independent
claim 5 is requires “at least one of’ impressions “and” embossments.
(Appeal Br. 4.) The Appellants also implicate that the claim term “symbol”
is clear in the context of the phrase “a letter, a number, and a symbol.” (Id.)
The Appellants additionally submit that it is clear that “the side surface of
the key is provided with elevations and grooves.” (Id.)
3
Appeal 2015-003665
Application 13/501,987
by the applicant can take the form of a modification of the language
identified as unclear, a separate definition of the unclear language, or, in an
appropriate case, a persuasive explanation for the record of why the
language at issue is not actually unclear.”).
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Rejection II
Independent claim 5 recites that the “profilings” are “provided with a
lettering” that can be a “letter,” a “number,” or a “symbol.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Keller discloses a key including such
lettering. (See Final Action 3.)
Independent claim 5 also recites that the “profilings” are “formed as
grooves elevations and extending in longitudinal direction along the shaft.”
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Keller “does not teach
grooves and elevations on the sides of the key shaft” and the Examiner finds
that “Lou teaches grooves and elevations on the sides of the key shaft, for
use with the coding impressions.” (Final Action 3—4.) The Examiner
determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to modify the side surfaces”
of Keller’s key “to include grooves and elevations” and “render key
duplication difficult.” (Id. at 4.) The Examiner further explains:
[Providing longitudinal grooves and elevations along the axial
length of a key blade is very well known in the lock and key art.
These grooves and elevations typically cooperate with similar
shapes of a keyway of the lock cylinder, which accepts the
corresponding shape of the key. The well-known and beneficial
intent of supplying longitudinal grooves and elevations along the
key is to provide a security feature for the lock, such that an
additional obstacle against unauthorized key insertion is
provided. The precise shape of a key that a lock cylinder would
4
Appeal 2015-003665
Application 13/501,987
accept is defined by the particular grooves and elevations of the
key, along with the particular shape of the keyway of the lock
cylinder.
(Answer 6.) According to the Examiner, “[cjlearly, the required particularly
shaped and dimensioned longitudinal grooves and elevations of a key, along
with the required shape of the keyway of the lock, optimizes the security of
the lock against insertion of an unauthorized key.” {Id. 6—7.)
The Appellants argue that “a person with skill in the art would not
have had any reason to provide longitudinal grooves along the length of the
key disclosed in [Keller].” (Reply Br. 6.) We are persuaded by this
argument because the Examiner does not explain adequately how Keller’s
key would actually be “grooved” in view of the teachings of Lou or
otherwise.
Keller discloses a locking system “for large buildings such as
factories, hotels or banks” which requires “master” keys, “subsidiary” keys,
and “individual” keys. (Keller, 1,11. 28—34.) In this situation, a majority of
the locks are unlocked by master keys, specific groups of locks are unlocked
by respective subsidiary keys, and individual locks are unlocked by
individual keys. {See id.) When “a plurality of locks and keys, in
accordance with [Keller’s] invention are provided, the recesses of the
individual keys may be identical in construction but the lengths and heads of
individual tumbler pins may be different” and/or “the recesses in the
individual keys may be of different depths and shapes.” {Id. 2,11. 43—58.)
Notably, Keller’s key 4 does not have a traditional or conventional
“key” shape. Instead, as is best shown in Figure 7 reproduced below,
Keller’s key has a plurality of recesses with different geometric shapes (e.g.,
circles, squares, diamonds, etc.) and these recesses have varying depths.
5
Appeal 2015-003665
Application 13/501,987
As indicated above, the Examiner determines that “[i]t would have
been obvious to modify the side surfaces” of Keller’s key “to include
grooves and elevations.” (Final Action 4.) In view of Keller’s uncommon
key construction, the Examiner does not address adequately how one of
ordinary skill would apply longitudinal grooves and elevations, well-known
or otherwise, to Keller’s key without negatively impacting its existing
structure and design. (See Answer 6.) For example, we are left uncertain as
to arrangement of such grooves and/or elevations relative to the existing
recesses in Keller’s key; and we are left uncertain as to the interaction of
such grooves and/or elevations with Keller’s tumbler pins.
Accordingly, insofar as Lou discloses grooves and/or elevations that
“render key duplication difficult” (Final Action 3) and/or that provide “an
additional obstacle against unauthorized key insertion” (Answer 3), the
Examiner does not explain, and we do not see, how Keller’s key structure
could or would be modified to incorporate such grooves and/or elevations
for the stated reasons.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keller and Lou.
6
Appeal 2015-003665
Application 13/501,987
Rejection III
The Examiner’s further findings with respect to Yun-Sheng do not
compensate for the above-discussed shortcomings in the teachings of Keller
and Lou. (See Final Action 4.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keller, Lou, and Yun-Sheng.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5 and 7.
REVERSED
7