Ex Parte Reasoner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

10323550 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte KELLY J. REASONER and KRAIG A. PROEHL
____________________

Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-25 which are all the pending claims in the Application. Br. 5. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to an electromechanical locking
mechanism, and a method of operating the locking mechanism, for a data
storage system. The data storage system includes drawers 102 in a cabinet
containing and storing data cartridges for associated read/write devices. The
locking mechanism itself includes a drawer attachment segment 110 and a
cabinet attachment segment 120 having a plunger 124 to secure the drawer
102 in the cabinet. A sensor 128, 130 detects the position of the drawer
attachment segment 110 and the plunger 124 has a configuration that moves
the drawer segment 110, and hence the media drawer 102, in a manner
which deactivates and reactivates the sensor 128 as the drawer reaches a
closed position. Spec. 6, paras. 0023-24; and figs. 1a-d.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An electromechanical locking apparatus comprising:
an attachment member;
an actuator coupled to the attachment member that
extends the attachment member;
an insertion member with an aperture for receiving the
attachment member; and
a sensor that detects movement of the insertion member,
the attachment member having a configuration that moves the
insertion member to deactivate and reactivate the sensor as the
Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
3
aperture receives the attachment member, the detection of
movement enabling determination of incorrect installation or an
inoperative condition of the actuator and sensor.

Independent claim 12 is a method claim directed to “[a] method
of operating a locking mechanism.” Independent claim 23 is a means-
plus-function claim reciting “[a] locking apparatus capable of locking
a moveable member to a fixed structure.” App. Br. Clms. Appx.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Warren
Myers
US 5,805,074
US 6,116,067
Sep. 8, 1998
Sep. 12, 2000

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1-16 and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as
being anticipated by Myers.
Claims 17, 18 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Myers in view of Warren.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1-11 as anticipated by Myers
The Examiner found that Myers discloses an electromechanical
locking apparatus including “attachment member (72), an actuator (66)
coupled to the attachment member that extends the attachment member, an
insertion member (76) with an aperture (80) for receiving the attachment
Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
4
member, and a sensor (110) that detects movement of the insertion member.”
Ans. 3. The Examiner also found all the elements of claim 1 were met by
the disclosure of Myers, including the recited functional feature(s) of the
sensor (110) providing “the detection of movement enabling determination
of incorrect installation or an inoperative condition of the actuator and
sensor (the sensor being capable of sensing intermediate positions of the
locking apparatus), as in claim 1.” Id. at 4. The Examiner supports these
findings equating Myers’ lock bar element 72 with Appellants’ “attachment
member”:
Myers discloses position of the attachment
member is detected by the sensor which indicates
whether the attachment member is in the lower
position or the higher position, where the insertion
member directly influences the attachment
member by direct contact between the two
components.
Id. at. 9. For its part, Myers explains that the lock bar 72 is detected with a
reed switch sensor, “[t]he up/down position of the lock bar 72 is detected by
a magnetic reed switch 110 which indicates whether the lock bar 72 is in the
lower (locking) position or the higher (unlocking) position.” Fig. 4 and col.
5, ll. 50-53.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has misapplied the disclosure of
Myers’ sensor and lock bar 72 because “[t]he Examiner relies on the reed
switch 110 disclosed by Myers…. However, the reed switch does not detect
movement of the insertion member.” Br. 9. Emphasis Added. In other
words, Appellants argue that Myers has not been correctly applied to the
appropriate elements in claim 1 and also that Myers does not disclose
sensing of the specifically recited insertion member. According to
Appellants, Myers discloses a sensed “attachment member,” i.e., lock bar
Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
5
72, but the lock bar 72 is not structurally or functionally the same or a
similar element as Appellants’ claimed “insertion member” located on the
drawer.
In response, the Examiner acknowledges that the magnetic reed
switch 110 detects the position of the attachment member (lock bar 72). The
Examiner’s finding that the reed switch 110 also “detects movement of the
insertion member” simply because the insertion member directly influences
the attachment member is an unreasonably broad interpretation of this
limitation in light of Appellants’ Specification, which discloses that sensor
128 detects the movement of an insertion member 112 when that insertion
member is inserted into an insertion channel 132 on which the sensor 128 is
positioned. Spec. paras. [0023-0025]; figs. 3A, 3B. Myers discloses that
only the lock bar 72 position is detected by the reed switch 110.
The up/down position of the lock bar 72 is
detected by a magnetic reed switch 110 which
indicates whether the lock bar 72 is in the lower
(locking) position or the higher (unlocking)
position.
Myers col. 5, ll. 50-53.
To the extent that the Examiner’s position is premised on the potential
for the lock bar 72 to be influenced by the latch member 76 (insertion
member) into an intermediate position, and thus the latch member 76 sensed
indirectly, we note that the lock bar 72 is not motivated into the locking and
unlocking positions by the latch member 76, but in fact is directly controlled
by the actuator motor 66, “[t]o move the lock bar 72 into locking and
unlocking positions, the electronically controlled actuating mechanism
includes the cam disc 70 which is mounted on an output shaft 98 of the gear
reduction box.” Myers col. 5, ll. 12-15. The Examiner’s finding that the
Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
6
lock bar 72 has “an intermediate position between the locking and unlocking
positions, which may occur if the upper edge of a locking aperture engages
the sloped leading edge of the insertion member on the corresponding
drawer” (Ans. 10) does not adequately explain how this arrangement allows
the reed switch 110 to detect movement of the latch member 76 as called for
in claim 1, because the reed sensor 110 detects solely the lock bar 72.1 See
Myers col. 5, ll. 50-64. In other words, Myers’ sensor 110 receives no direct
or indirect information as to the position or movement of the insertion
member (latch member 76) whether the insertion member is the cause of an
intermediate positioning of the lock bar 72 or not. Any number of
mechanical or electromechanical malfunctions, failures or errors could cause
the lock bar 72 to stall or jam at an intermediate position. Therefore, as
Myers does not disclose “a sensor that detects movement of the insertion
member,” as recited in claim 1, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants assert that dependent claims 2-11 are believed allowable
for the same reasons as claim 1, and proffer additional arguments for claims
2, 3, 4 and 6. Br. 9-11. We do not reach these arguments as the rejection of
these dependent claims is similarly not sustained for the reasons supra.

Claims 12-16 and 19-22 as anticipated by Myers
The Examiner found with respect to the method recited in claim 12
that Myers discloses each of the claimed method steps, including the sensing
of a “moveable member.” Ans. 5. “Myers et al. additionally disclose a
method of operating a locking mechanism comprising sensing presence of a

1 Appellants disclose that a sensor 128 detects the position of the plunger
insertion member 112 within the insertion channel 132. Spec. para. [0025];
figs. 3A, 3B.
Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
7
moveable member in a vicinity near a fixed structure (column 5, lines 50-
55).” Id. Addressing each of the method steps, the Examiner found Myers
discloses “actuating a locking member in response to the moveable member
sensed presence (column 5, lines 34-49)” and also, “shifting position of the
moveable member with respect to the fixed structure as the locking member
is engaged (column 6, lines 25-34).” Id.
Appellants simply argue that “[c]laim 12 includes similar recitations
to those already discussed above for claim 1. Myers fails to disclose at least
these recitations as discussed in more detail above for claim 1.” Br. 12.
This argument is not persuasive because claim 12 calls for the broadly
claimed steps of “sensing presence of a moveable member” rather than
sensing presence of an insertion member and “actuating a locking member.”
We do not agree with Appellants that claim 12 recites the same elements as
claim 1 such that Appellants’ arguments for claim 1 apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings as to claim 12. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as anticipated by
Myers. As claims 13-16 and 19-22 depend either directly or indirectly on
claim 12, and Appellants have not provided any other substantive
arguments, the rejection of these claims is also sustained. See Br. 12.

Claims 23 and 24 as anticipated by Myers
The Examiner also finds that Myers discloses each of the independent
means-plus-function elements of claim 23. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner’s
analysis makes an element-by-element comparison of claim 23 with Myers
and initially determines that
Myers et al. additionally disclose a locking
apparatus capable of locking a moveable member
Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
8
(22) to a fixed structure (20) comprising means for
locking the moveable member to the fixed
structure (figure 4), the locking means having a
configuration that shifts position of the moveable
member with respect to the fixed structure
(element 72 shifts in a vertical position during
actuation).
Id.
Appellants argue only that the anticipation of claim 23 should be
reversed for the same reasons as claim 1. Br. 12. Here again, we disagree
with Appellants that claim 23 recites the same elements as claim 1 such that
Appellants’ arguments in regards to claim 1 apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings as to claim 23. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
It is not apparent that the “means for sensing presence of the moveable
member” in claim 23 is necessarily “a sensor that detects movement of the
insertion member” as recited in claim 1. The drawer 102 could be
considered a moveable member and paragraph 0024 of Appellants’
Specification discloses that a sensing arm 130 senses when the moveable
media drawer 102 is reaching a closed position. Sensing arm 130 is
different from the sensor 128 that detects when the plunger insertion
member 112 is seated in an insertion channel 132 as recited in claim 1. See
Spec. paras. 0024-0025. Also, the Appellants’ Summary of Claimed Subject
Matter identifies the moveable member as element 124, which is neither the
drawer 102 nor the insertion member 112. See Br. 4. We therefore sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 as anticipated by Myers. As claim 24
depends directly from claim 23, and Appellants have not provided any other
substantive arguments, the rejection of this claim is also sustained. See Br. 5
and 12.

Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
9

Claims 17, 18 and 25 as obvious over Myers in view of Warren
Claims 17 and 18 include the limitation of, “generating an error signal
if the predetermined interval times out before sensing presence of the
moveable member shifting back toward the fixed structure.” Br. Clms.
Appx. Claim 25 recites a “means for generating an error signal if the
predetermined interval times out before the moveable member position shift
away from the fixed structure is detected.” The Examiner relied on Warren
to disclose this feature by noting
initiating timing in response to the moveable
member sensed presence or the detection of the
moveable member position shift away from the
fixed structure (column 11, lines 12-28), timing for
a predetermined interval (determined by the
location of the dip switches), and generating an
error signal if the predetermined interval times out
before the moveable member position shift away
from the fixed structure is detected.
Ans. 8. The Examiner reasoned that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate a timing device
interconnected with the sensor as taught by Warren
et al. onto the sensor of the locking apparatus of
Myers et al., since basic operation of the moveable
member and the fixed structure is in no way
dependent on timing of the sensor in conjunction
with the locking apparatus, and the timing means
could be used in combination with locking
apparatus to achieve the predictable results of
automatically locking the locking apparatus after a
predetermined interval.
Id. at 8-9. Appellants on the other hand argue that the timing means
disclosed by Warren times an interval during which storage units can be
Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
10
opened and is not used to generate an error signal as called for in claims 17
and 18. Br. 13-14. Regarding, claim 25, Appellants further argue that
claim 25 also recites “means for generating an
error signal if the predetermined interval times out
before the moveable member position shift away
from the fixed structure is detected.” The timing
means disclosed by Warren times an interval
during which storage units can be opened and is
not used to generate an error signal.
Br. 14.
Warren discloses a timing means 135 at column 11, line 12,
associated with the sensing means 134, which automatically locks the
storage unit after a predetermined period of time. “For added security, the
timing means 135 is activated and set to lock the storage assembly 100
automatically.” Warren col. 14., ll. 2-4. Warren’s automatic locking of the
storage unit(s) 114 is based upon the sensor detecting the closing of a
storage unit then locking the unit immediately if necessary, or waiting for
some time delay to occur based upon the position of the dip switches 194,
before locking the unit.
For the ultimate security, the first switch 194 is
closed wherein the storage assembly 100 will
immediately lock when an open storage unit 114 is
closed. This mode requires the users to enter an
input code equal to the access code for each
storage unit 114 opening. The other switches 194
allow a time delay before automatic locking.
Warren col. 14., ll. 20-25. We agree with Appellants that Warren does not
teach or suggest generating an error signal for any part of the function of the
locking mechanism, nor that the error signal occurs where a predetermined
interval times out and generates an error message according to the relative
shifting in structure of the moveable member “away” from the fixed cabinet
Appeal 2010-009067
Application 10/323,550
11
structure as recited in each of the dependent claims 17, 18 and 25. Thus,
because neither Myers nor Warren discloses the limitations of claims 17, 18,
and 25 mentioned above, neither does the combined teachings of Myers and
Warren. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, and
25 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as unpatentable over Myers and Warren.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11, 17,
18 and 25 are reversed and the rejection of claims 12-16 and 19-24 is
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls