Se-Kure Controls, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2020

15426509 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2020)

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.
15/426,509 02/07/2017 Roger J. Leyden SEK00831P00441US 2617
32116 7590 03/25/2020
WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER
500 W. MADISON STREET
SUITE 1130
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
RUSHING, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2020 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):
docketing@woodphillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte ROGER J. LEYDEN and DAVID M. ADAMS

Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509
Technology Center 2600

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MICHAEL T.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Se-Kure
Controls, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to monitoring a portable
article. Appeal Br. 2. A location signal generator continuously generates
location signals to monitor a location of the housing. Spec. ¶ 5. A securing
assembly maintains the location signal generator on the article being
monitored. Id. The securing assembly also generates an alert signal in the
event that the securing assembly is monitored. Id. The securing assembly
may include a tether creating an electrical path that, when broken, triggers
the alert signal. Id. ¶ 8. The system may also include a further alarm
generator, which is activated when the housing is moved outside of a
predetermined area. Id. ¶ 9
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, with the limitations at issue
emphasized in italics:
1. A system for monitoring a portable article, the system
comprising:
a housing;
a location signal generator on the housing configured to
continuously generate location signals that can be processed to
continuously monitor a location of the housing; and
a securing assembly configured to: a) maintain the housing in
an operative state on a portable article being monitored; and b)
generate an alert signal in the event that the securing assembly
is altered with the housing in the operative state in a manner
that allows separation of the housing from a portable article
being monitored,
wherein the housing location signal generator and security
assembly are configured so that the location of the housing is
capable of being monitored through the generated location
signals with the housing in the operative state and the security
assembly unaltered.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

3
Dependent claims 2–16 and 21 incorporate the limitations of
independent claim 1. Independent claim 17 recites a method having all of
the components of the system of claim 8. Id. at 14. Dependent claims 19
and 20 each incorporate the limitations of claim 17. Id. at 11–14.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Hess US 2002/0113704 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Vannerus et al.
(Vannerus)
US 2006/0202839 A1 Sept. 14, 2006
O’Neill US 2007/0030129 A1 Feb. 8, 2007
Rajala et al.
(Rajala)
US 2009/0109633 A1 Apr. 30, 2009
Shannon et al.
(Shannon)
US 2010/0052907 A1 Mar. 4, 2010
Jones US 2012/0299755 A1 Nov. 29, 2012
Akins et al.
(Akins)
US 2013/0150028 A1 June 13, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8, 11, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Hess and
Vannerus.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Hess, Vannerus, and Jones.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Hess and Vannerus, Jones, and
Rajala.
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

4
Claims 12–15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Hess, Vannerus,
and Akins.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Hess, Vannerus, and O’Neill.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Hess, Vannerus, and Shannon.

OPINION
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends that the combination of
Hess and Vannerus is erroneous because the Examiner has not presented an
appropriate reason to combine the references. We do not find this argument
persuasive.
The Examiner finds that Hess teaches the claimed limitations except
for specifying that the location signal generator continuously generates
location signals and is configured so that the location of the housing may be
monitored with the housing in the operative state and the security assembly
unaltered. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Vannerus provides the
missing teaching, and that “it would have been obvious . . . to modify Hess
with Vannerus[’s] continuously generated location signals in order to
provide real time, ongoing location monitoring for added security
measures.” Id. The Examiner further states, “it is common to continuously
generate location data when using GPS systems.” Id. at 3. The Examiner
further finds it would be obvious “to modify Hess with Vannerus[’s]
monitoring the housing in an operative state in order to provide real time,
ongoing location monitoring for safety measures of the monitored child.”
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

5
Id. at 3–4. The Examiner additionally finds that such ongoing monitoring
“would be valuable to the Hess invention to keep track of the location of the
lock and the property it protects for peace of mind and for the ability to find
the property if the owner forgot where it was left.” Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that Vannerus focuses on a different problem than
Hess. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that Hess “is not concerned with
continuously tracking the location of articles in the absence of a [security]
breach” (Appeal Br. 5), or with “helping people keep track of property on a
daily basis in the event that the property might become lost by the owner
(Reply Br. 2). Appellant describes Vannerus as focusing on “monitoring
live beings,” particularly near water, and not on the focus of Hess, which is
controlling theft of non-human objects. Id., Reply Br. 2. According to the
Examiner, although “continuous monitoring of GPS signal is known in other
applications, as in Vannerus, it would not have been obvious to those skilled
in the art to combine such capabilities to arrive at what Appellant is
claiming.” Ans. 4.
Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is
some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has stated that is erroneous
to “look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve,” or to assume
“that a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to solve a problem will
be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same
problem.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007).
The Court in KSR further stated, “if a technique has been used to improve
one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

6
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417.
In the present case, Appellant focuses on the problems that the
individual references were trying to solve, rather than what they teach or
suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art. Appellant’s argument that
Vannerus is trying to solve a different problem (child safety near water-
containing zones) than Hess (theft of non-human objects) lacks persuasive
force in view of KSR. See KSR at 420–421 (“The idea that a designer
hoping to make an adjustable electronic pedal would ignore Asano because
Asano was designed to solve the constant ratio problem makes little sense.”).
We further note that Vannerus includes proximity zones that trigger
alarms for purposes such as anti-kidnapping and anti-abduction. See
Vannerus ¶ 54. Appellant has not adequately explained how Vannerus’s
teachings relating to preventing the undesired taking of a child would not be
considered relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art desiring to improve
measures to prevent the undesired taking of property, as claimed and as in
Hess.
Appellant further argues that such a combination “is a redesign made
with the taint of hindsight.” Id. at 5–6. With respect to Appellant’s
argument of hindsight,
[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was
made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner
has relied upon knowledge that is not from Applicant’s disclosure. The
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

7
Examiner has relied upon Vannerus’s stated advantage to continuous
monitoring of safety measures of the monitored child. Final Act, 3–4. This
statement accurately reflects the aforementioned safety features of Vannerus.
We find this statement sufficient to show that the Examiner takes motivation
from Vannerus, and not from Applicant’s disclosure.
Consequently, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Appellant has not separately argued claims 2–8 and
17–19. Appeal Br. 6–7. Therefore, these claims fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–8 and 17–19.
Claim 11 recites the further limitation, “wherein the system further
comprises a detectable alarm generator and a motion sensor that is
configured to cause the detectable alarm generator to be activated upon a
predetermined movement of the housing.” The Examiner has relied on Hess
for teaching this additional limitation. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
Hess teaches “the system will refrain from activation until a predetermined
amount of movement is detected” (italics omitted). Id. (citing Hess ¶ 20).
Appellant argues that Hess includes a motion sensor and an alarm, but
does not describe the motion sensor as triggering the alarm. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant further argues that Hess conveys that the alarm would be activated
by tampering with the cable rather than movement of the enclosure. Reply
Br. 5.
However, Hess explicitly states that the motion sensor signal “may be
used to cause the transmission of an alarm signal from the security cable.”
Hess ¶ 38. Hess further states that the “motion detector 45 [is] for sensing
movement of the enclosure.” Id. ¶ 20. In view of the express teachings of
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

8
Hess, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that Hess
teaches or suggests the additional limitation of claim 11.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the Examiner relies upon the base
combination of Hess and Vannerus, as modified by Jones (claim 9) or Rajala
(claim 10), each of which are relied upon for details of the mechanical
connection of the security device. Final Act. 6–7. Appellant argues that the
rejections of both claims 9 and 10 are in error because the Examiner has not
provided a reason why, for claim 9, “one skilled in the art would make a
change from the Hess structure to that in Jones, when in fact Hess’
construction already performs the same stated functions.” Appeal Br. 7–8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims
9 and 10. With respect to claim 9, the Examiner finds that Hess teaches a
cable having a releasable mechanical and electrical connection between
cable ends, but not that the releasable mechanical connection is to the
housing. Final Act. 6; see Hess Fig. 1. The Examiner finds Jones to teach a
device wherein the releasable connection is between the housing and the
security cable. Final Act. 6–7; see Jones Fig. 3. Jones provides a releasable,
lockable mechanical attachment having a mechanical structure that is used in
the art, such as in the “Modulus ™ 1018 Security System manufactured by
Kryptonite.” Jones ¶ 39 (cited at Final Act. 6).
The Examiner here provides a reason, suggested by Jones, for
combining the releasable mechanical connection between cable and housing
with the teachings of Hess. We understand the Examiner’s reasoning to be
that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use
Jones’s releasable, mechanical connection for the same art-recognized,
equivalent purpose as in Hess.
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

9
As discussed, supra, “if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
417. We determine that the Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning to
support obviousness based on this rationale.
The Examiner has found that the prior art combination of Hess and
Vannerus teaches a system that differs from the claimed invention by the
substitution of a housing-to-cable connection for a cable-to-cable
connection. Final Act. 6. The Examiner has further found that the Jones
reference teaches a housing-to-cable connection, and Jones teaches that such
a connection was commercially available at the time of the Jones reference.
Id. The Examiner has further found that the housing-to-cable connection
taught by Jones permits the same type of releasable mechanical and
electrical attachments as taught by Hess’s cable-to-cable attachment. Id.
Accordingly, the Examiner has provided adequate reasoning, under the
standards for obviousness set forth in KSR, to support a finding of
obviousness for claim 9. Consequently, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 9 and 10.
With respect to claims 12–15 and 21, the Examiner relies upon the
base combination of Hess and Vannerus, as modified by Akins. Final Act.
8–9. Appellant argues that the combination is not supported by an
identifiable reason to combine the references. Appeal Br. 8–9.
With respect to claim 12, the Examiner has identified “added
security” as the advantage of using the Bluetooth module of Akins in the
invention of Hess and Vannerus. Final Act. 8 (citing Akins ¶¶ 7, 72, 76).
Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

10
Akins, at the sections cited by the Examiner, discusses the use of standard
protocols to exchange encrypted unique identifiers to verify authenticity.
Appellant states that “added security” is merely conclusory. Appeal
Br. 9; Reply Br. 6. However, Appellant does not explain how the Examiner
has erred in ascribing that advantage to the Akins’ Bluetooth module.
Appellant relies upon the same alleged defect for claims 13–15 and 21.
Reply Br. 6. Consequently, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 12–15 and 21.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 16 and 20 are made over the base
combination of Hess and Vannerus, further in view of O’Neill (claim 16)
and Shannon (claim 20). Appellant argues that these rejections are in error
for the same reasons as argued against claims 4 and 19, which are ultimately
argued to be allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10.
Because we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1, Appellant
has not persuaded us of error in claims 16 or 20.
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–21 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 11,
17–19
103 Hess, Vannerus 1–8, 11,
17–19

Appeal 2019-001336
Application 15/426,509

11
9 103 Hess, Vannerus,
Jones
9
10 103 Hess, Vannerus,
Jones, Rajala
10
12–15, 21 103 Hess, Vannerus,
Akins
12–15, 21
16 103 Hess, Vannerus,
O’Neill
16
20 103 Hess, Vannerus,
Shannon
20
Overall
Outcome
1–21

AFFIRMED