Ex Parte Moller

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 2, 2017

13040201 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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. 13/040,201 03/03/2011 Per Kristian Moller 5544-20 2439 22442 7590 Sheridan Ross PC 1560 Broadway Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 03/06/2017 EXAMINER RUSHING, MARK S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/06/2017 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): e-docket @ sheridanross. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PER KRISTIAN MOLLER Appeal 2016-007354 Application 13/040,201 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-007354 Application 13/040,201 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1—15 and 17—24. Claim 16 has been allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. A method, comprising: providing a tamper-detection device with a tamper switch, a microcontroller, a diode connected between the microcontroller and the tamper switch, and a capacitor connected in parallel with the tamper switch, the capacitor having a state of charge, such that the capacitor has a charged state when no tamper activity is detected and a discharged state when tamper activity is detected, such that closing of the tamper switch in the absence of any power supplied to the microcontroller causes the capacitor to discharge and after the capacitor discharges and while no power is supplied to the microcontroller change an input value for the microcontroller indicating that tamper activity is detected. Prior Art Dawson US 5,493,279 Feb. 20, 1996 Brown US 2010/0031714 A1 Feb. 11,2010 Kamp US 2011/0110171 A1 May 12, 2011 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1—5, 7—15, and 17—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dawson and Kamp. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dawson, Kamp, and Brown. 2 Appeal 2016-007354 Application 13/040,201 ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Non-Final Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 recites “closing of the tamper switch in the absence of any power supplied to the microcontroller causes the capacitor to discharge and after the capacitor discharges and while no power is supplied to the microcontroller change an input value for the microcontroller indicating that tamper activity is detected.” Appellant contends that this limitation is not taught by the combination of Dawson and Kamp. Reply Br. 2—A. Appellant’s Specification discloses that if the power supply is removed and the [tamper] switch 30 is closed, the capacitor Cl will be rapidly discharged. When the power is reapplied, the input at the microcontroller 304 is read as a logical “0” until the capacitor Cl is again charged by the pull-up resistor. Reading of the logical “0” during this time enables the microcontroller 304 to report tamper even though there was no power supply when the actual tamper activity occurred. Spec. 8:29—9:3; Fig. 6. Dawson teaches that closing tamper switch S1 in the absence of any power supplied from power supply 36 to microprocessor 44 causes capacitor C200 to discharge, supplying power to microprocessor 44, so that the microprocessor can record a tamper value in non-volatile memory 43. Col. 6,11. 54—63; col. 8,11. 49-64; col. 12,11. 50-59; Figs. 2, 3, and 6. Kamp teaches that detecting an external tamper event in the absence of any power supplied to read circuit 20 causes an energy harvester to send an electric signal to non-volatile memory 18, so that the non-volatile 3 Appeal 2016-007354 Application 13/040,201 memory can record a tamper value. ^fl[ 28—30, 68—70; Fig. 2. When power is later supplied to the read circuit 20, the tamper value is read. Tflf 43, 71— 72; Fig. 2. “Thus, the detection device of [Figure 2] defines a powerless detection device.” 130. The Supreme Court has recognized that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Replacing detection circuit 42 shown in Figure 3 of Dawson with non-volatile memory 18 and read circuit 20 of the detection device shown in Figure 2 of Kamp represents the substitution of one known element for another known in the field that yields a predictable result. Here, the predictable result is, closing tamper switch S1 in the absence of any power supplied to microprocessor 44 causes capacitor C200 to discharge, sending an electric signal to non-volatile memory 18, so that the non-volatile memory can record a tamper value “while no power is supplied to the microcontroller” as claimed. Appellant contends that the energy harvester of Kamp raises the voltage on the input capacitance of the electronic unit. Reply Br. 4—5. However, Appellant’s contention does not respond to the Examiner’s combination, namely, that when the tamper switch of Dawson is closed, the capacitor of Dawson discharges to send an electric signal to a non-volatile memory as taught by Kamp. Ans. 10—11. Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we highlight Paragraph 13 of Kamp teaches the harvester can be a device that provides electrostatic discharge, such as a capacitor. 4 Appeal 2016-007354 Application 13/040,201 Appellant contends Figure 4 of Kamp shows set control circuit 30 receiving energy from the energy harvester, and therefore cannot be used to show changing an input value “while no power is supplied to the microcontroller” as claimed. Reply Br. 5. However, the Examiner relies on the set control circuit shown in Figure 7 of Kamp. Ans. 9. Kamp discloses Figure 4 as a second embodiment, and Figure 7 as a fourth embodiment. 1147, 63. Appellant does not persuasively explain why the teachings of the second embodiment of Kamp apply to the fourth embodiment. Appellant contends the set control circuit of Kamp is not equivalent to the microcontroller as claimed. Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s Specification does not provide a limiting definition of the claimed “microcontroller” that excludes the set control circuit of Kamp. Further, Dawson teaches a “microcontroller” within the meaning of claim 1. See Ans. 9. Appellant’s contention that Kamp alone does not teach a microcontroller does not show error in the Examiner’s combination of Dawson and Kamp. Appellant contends the Examiner has not provided motivation to modify Dawson. Reply Br. 6—7. We disagree for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 13—14. Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we highlight the combination of Dawson and Kamp represents the substitution of one known element for another known in the field as discussed above. Appellant contends Dawson does not teach the “capacitor prevents change of an input at the microcontroller relating to the status of the tamper switch during a loss of power event provided the capacitor has a charge and the tamper switch is not physically activated” as recited in claim 8. Reply Br. 8. Appellant’s contention does not address the combination of Dawson 5 Appeal 2016-007354 Application 13/040,201 and Kamp, which results in a memory storing the change of input during a loss of power to a microcontroller. Ans. 10. The microcontroller would receive the change of input from the memory only after power is restored as taught by Kamp. || 71—73. We sustain the rejections of claims 1—15 and 17—24 under 35 U.S.C. §103. DECISION The rejections of claims 1—15 and 17—24 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6