Ex Parte Kauffman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

14291088 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/291,088 05/30/2014 Morgan Draper Kauffman
23413 7590 06/22/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DPKOOOlUS 1060
EXAMINER
WEBER, JONATHAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MORGAN DRAPER KAUFFMAN 1
Appeal2017-007013
Application 14/291,088
Technology Center 3600
Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellant is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007013
Application 14/291,088
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods of authorizing the use of a
weapon, and weapons with processors configured to perform the methods.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claims:
1. A method of authorizing a weapon, comprising:
storing an authorization string at the weapon;
receiving an authorization message at the weapon that
includes a first substring obtained from a copy of the
authorization string;
comparing the first substring to a second substring
obtained from the authorization string stored at the weapon;
authorizing the weapon when the first substring matches
the second substring; and
de-authorizing and thereby disabling the weapon when the
weapon is not re-authorized within a selected time interval.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bennett
Kaminski
Brown
us 5,461,812
US 6,237,271 Bl
US 7,921,588 B2
REJECTIONS
Oct. 31, 1995
May 29, 2001
Apr. 12, 2011
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Bennett.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett and Brown.
Claims 8, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bennett and Kaminski.
2
Appeal2017-007013
Application 14/291,088
OPINION
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19,
and 21 together. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant does not substantially address the
rejection of dependent claims 8, 15, and 22 and therefore these claims stand
or fall with claim 1.
Appellant argues that claim 1 is not anticipated because Bennett does
not teach "de-authorizing and thereby disabling the weapon when the
weapon is not re-authorized within a selected time interval" as required by
claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant explains "Bennett ... does not teach using
time as a limiting factor to de-authorize and disable the weapon." Id. at 9.
This is because the distance between the gun and an activation device in the
form of the presence of a ring "determines whether the gun is activated or
inactivated." Id.
The Examiner correctly responds that activation in Bennett's weapon
is "dependent on both time and distance." Ans. 8. The Examiner further
explains:
Though there is a distance constraint applied to activation and
de-activation, and this plays a major role in the activation and de-
activation, there is also a time constraint because the system is
checking at given time intervals whether the ring and firearm are
located within the appropriate distance with the correct firearm
and coded ring combination.
Id. at 8-9 ( emphasis added).
Appellant admits that:
3
Appeal2017-007013
Application 14/291,088
Bennett teaches that the gun transmits a signal to the ring, which
then sends a message back to the gun with the ring's identifying
number encoded in the message. The microcomputer in the gun
after verifying that the correct identifying number is received,
allows the gun to be fired. The process is repeated several times
a second. An incorrect response or lack of a response prevents
the gun from being fired.
Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis added) ( citations omitted).
It is unclear why Bennett's repeating of the verification process
"several times a second'' is not equivalent to "re-authoriz[ ation] within a
selected time interval" as required by claim 1. Thus, we are not informed of
error in the Examiner's rejection.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20
Concerning dependent claim 4, the Examiner determines that
"Bennett does not disclose using transmission time as part of the
authorization message." Final Act. 6. The Examiner relies on Brown for
this teaching. Id. The Examiner also relies on Brown for similar limitations
in claims 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20. Id. at 6-9.
Appellant correctly argues that Brown "does not disclose that the
received authorization message includes receiving a transmission time of the
authorization message." Appeal Br. 12 ( citing Brown 10: 14--3 6). The
Examiner provides no response. 2 Finding no support in the sections of
Brown cited by the Examiner, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20.
2 The Examiner does not respond to Appellant's arguments and incorrectly
states that "independent claims 1, 9 and 16 were the only claims properly
argued by the [ A Jppellant." Ans. 9.
4
Appeal2017-007013
Application 14/291,088
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19, 21,
and 22 are affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20 is
reversed.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5