Ex Parte Weik

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

11228395 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

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.
11/228,395 09/19/2005 Martin Herman Weik III 2341-0115PUS2 8638
7590 11/26/2012
Michael J. Foycik, Jr.
10125 Colesville Rd. #108
Silver Spring, MD 20901
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, BLAIR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2012 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 MARTIN H. WEIK, III
____________

Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Martin H. Weik, III, (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, 2nd paragraph and finally rejecting 4, 5, 13, 14, 29-31 and 33 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Parsadayan (US 6,329,930 B1, iss.
Dec. 11, 2001) and Fellows (US 5,557,887, iss. Sep. 24, 1996). Claims 1-3,
6-12, 15-28 and 32 are cancelled. Appellant’s representative presented oral
argument on Nov. 9, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.

THE INVENTION
Claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
4. An access restricted area management
system comprising:
a first barrier disposed at an entrance to an
access restricted area;
a first customer terminal proximate the
entrance of the access area;
at least one of a first loop detector proximate
the entrance of the access restricted area and a first
electric eye proximate the entrance of the access
restricted area;
a control system communicatively
connected to said first customer terminal, wherein
said control system receives an input from said
first customer terminal and if the input meets
predetermined criteria the input is deemed a valid
input and said control system sends an open signal
to said first barrier, and wherein said control
system monitors said at least one of a first loop
detector and said at least one of a first electric eye,
and if either a first loop detector is triggered only
Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395

3
once or a first electric eye is triggered only once,
said control system determines that a normal entry
into the access restricted area occurred, otherwise,
said control system determines that an abnormal
entry or unusual circumstances occurred and,
wherein the system creates an unusual event
log when its determines that an abnormal entry or
unusual circumstances have occurred and stores
the unusual event log; and
a second loop detector and/or a second
electric eye proximate the entrance of the access
restricted area, wherein said control system
evaluates the sequence of activation of any two of
said loop detectors and/or electric eyes to
determine a direction of movement of an object
into or out of the entrance of the access restricted
area.

OPINION
Indefiniteness
In the final Office action dated Jun 18, 2009, claims 13 and 14 were
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, as being indefinite. Final
Rejection 2. In the Appeal Brief Appellant states “[t]his rejection is agreed
with and is not traversed.” App. Br. 7. Therefore, we summarily affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Obviousness
Claims 4, 5, 13 and 14
Appellant argues claims 4 and 5 as a group. See App. Br. 8, 10-13;
Reply Br. 1-4. We select claim 4 as the representative claim, and claim 5
stands or falls with claim 4. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
Appellant argues:
Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395

4
Parsadayan does not disclose, either
explicitly or inherently (i.e., not just possibly and
not just probably, but necessarily), the following
positively recited features of claims 4 and 5:
(1) at least one of a first loop detector
proximate the entrance of the access restricted area
and a first electric eye proximate the entrance of
the access restricted area;
(2) a control system that creates an unusual
event log when its [sic] determines that an
abnormal entry or unusual circumstances have
occurred and stores the unusual event log; and
(3) a second loop detector and/or a second
electric eye proximate the entrance of the access
restricted area, wherein said control system
evaluates the sequence of activation of any two of
said loop detectors and/or electric eyes to
determine a direction of movement of an object
into or out of the entrance of the access restricted
area.

App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 1-3. We will consider each of these
contentions in turn.
Regarding item (1), Appellant’s contention that Parsadayan fails to
disclose a first loop detector is not factually correct. The Examiner finds
that Parsadayan explicitly describes “loop sensor 18.” Ans. 3. Although the
exact location of Parsadayan’s loop sensor 18 is not described; Parsadayan
states “[t]he loop sensor 18 produces a signal when a vehicle is in the gate
area, i.e., has started to pass through, but has not yet passed through the
gates.” Parsadayan, col. 2, ll. 28-31. Thus, Parsadayan describes a first loop
detector proximate the entrance of the access restricted area. Further, even
Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395

5
though claim 4 does not require a first electric eye1, the Examiner correctly
finds that Fellows describes an electric eye and that an electric eye is a
known equivalent sensor in the art. Ans. 3
Regarding item (2), Appellant’s contention that Parsadayan fails to
disclose a log as set forth in claims 4 and 5 is not factually correct. As the
Examiner correctly finds, “[i]n addition to the cameras being triggered by
the sensor system to record and log abnormal events, the computer sends
email messages to the appropriate authorities, further indicating the creation
of a log.” Ans. 3; see also Parsadayan, col. 1, ll. 51-58; col. 2, ll. 43-55; col.
3, ll. 13-36. Thus, Parsadayan describes a control system that creates an
unusual event log.
Regarding item (3), Appellant’s contention that Parsadayan fails to
disclose a second loop detector is unconvincing. The Examiner finds that
Parsadayan “states that any ‘variety of sensors or combination of sensors,
well known in the art, which sense the presence of a vehicle’ are
contemplated (emphasis added).” Ans. 3. Appellant takes issue with the
Examiner’s truncation of the quotation. App. Br. 11-12. The full sentence
states:
The loop sensor 18 can be one of a variety of
sensors of the magnetic, optical pressure or other
variety of sensors or combinations of sensors, well
known in the art, which sense the presence of a
vehicle which has begun ingress or egress through
the gate but has not cleared through the gate.

1 Claim 4 requires “at least one of a first loop detector . . . and a first electric
eye . . .” App. Br. 16.
Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395

6
Parsadayan, col. 2, ll. 31-36. Appellant further contends that this sentence
implies that there is only one loop sensor. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 1-2.
Appellant mischaracterizes this sentence. The placement of the second
alternative coordinating conjunction “or” in this statement indicates that the
phrase following the conjunction is an alternative to the phrase proceeding
it. In other words the phrase “combination of sensors” is an alternative to
the phrase “one of a variety of sensors.” Emphasis added. Thus, because
Parsadayan contemplates a loop sensor comprising a combination of sensors,
we agree with the Examiner that Parsadayan discloses at least two loop
sensors. See Ans. 4.
Further, to the extent that Appellant is arguing that Parsadayan fails to
disclose a control system that evaluates the sequence of actions to determine
the direction of movement, Appellant’s argument is unconvincing. The
Examiner correctly identifies these limitations as statements of intended use
and reasonably finds that Parsadayan’s control system is capable of
performing this function stating “by sensing that the gate has not returned to
a closed position before a second vehicle is sensed by the loop detector, this
constitutes a sequence of events as well as direction of travel.” Id.
Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or arguments to establish this
finding is in error. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the
prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has speculatively
concluded “that Parsadayan discloses a single gate with sensors on both
sides of a single gate…” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2. However, this is not
dispositive of the issues before us because none of the claims require sensors
Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395

7
on either side of the gate. Rather, as discussed supra, the claims require a
control system capable of evaluating the sequence of activation of two loop
sensors. As discussed above, Parsadayan describes a control system capable
of performing this evaluation.
Turning to the secondary reference to Fellows, Appellant contends
“the Office action does not explicitly state how Fellowes2 is used to modify
Parsadayan, possibly, it is to provide an electric eye sensor for Parsadayan’s
loop sensor 18.” App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. Appellant’s contention is not
well taken. The Examiner reasonably finds “the use of electric eyes in this
type of environment are [sic] well known, as provided for by Fellows et al.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to provide an electric eye, as well
as a plurality of loop detectors and/or electric eyes, to control breaches of the
gate system.” Ans. 3-4.
Appellant does not present any substantive arguments with respect to
the rejection of claims 13 and 14. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we
shall also sustain the rejection of these claims over the combined teachings
of Parsadayan and Fellows.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5,
13 and 14.
Claims 29-31
Regarding claim 29, Appellant contends “Parsadayan is devoid of any
disclosure of a system that creates an unusual event log when it determines
that an abnormal entry or unusual circumstances have occurred and stores

2 For the purpose of this appeal, we consider Appellant’s reference to
“Fellows” as “Fellowes” to be a mere typographical error.
Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395

8
the unusual event log in memory.” App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5. As discussed,
supra, Parsadayan describes the creation of a log as claimed.
Appellant further disagrees with the Examiner’s position “that the
term ‘unusual’ is ‘subjective and non-limiting.’” Reply Br. 5. We agree that
the term “unusual” is defined by claim 29 and therefor is not “subjective and
non-limiting”; however, this is not the end of our inquiry. The Examiner
finds that Parsadayan’s “control system discussed above that is specifically
tailored to sense the recited tailgating . . .” Ans. 4; Parsadayan, c. 2, ll. 37-
43. As, tailgating is one of the “unusual” events identified in claim 29,
Parsadayan clearly meets this limitation of claim 29.
Appellant does not present any substantive arguments with respect to
the rejection of claims 30 and 31. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we
shall also sustain the rejection of these claims over the combined teachings
of Parsadayan and Fellows.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29-
31.
Claim 33
Appellant argues:
Parsadayan clearly does not disclose, either
explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily), the
recited two detector[s] at an access restricted area
entrance, a system that determines an unusual or
abnormal event which involves a sequence of
detector signals other that a sequence of detector
signals associated with a normal access event, and
if the control system notes that an unusual event
has occurred, a log of the unusual event it [sic]
stored in a memory.

Appeal 2010-007798
Application 11/228,395

9
App. Br. 13. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As discussed,
supra, the Examiner correctly finds that Parsadayan describes two detectors
at an access restricted area entrance. As further discussed, supra, the
Examiner correctly finds that Parsadayan describes a system capable of
determining that an unusual event (i.e. tailgating) has occurred; and, the
Examiner correctly finds that Parsadayan describes a log as set forth in claim
33.
Appellant further, argues that claim 33 further defines the claim
terminology “unusual”. See Reply Br. 5. As discussed, supra, we agree that
this claim terminology is definite; and, reiterate that Parsadayan describes an
unusual event, tailgating.
For these reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 29-31 and
33 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh