Ex Parte Zingsheim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 7, 201612971036 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/971,036 12/17/2010 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 07111/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeffrey S. Zingsheim 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. H0026805/4874/l 13425 7202 EXAMINER YANG, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/11/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY S. ZINGSHEIM and NATHAN J. GERNER Appeal2015-000739 Application 12/971,036 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal2015-000739 Application 12/971,036 THE INVENTION Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions are directed to an access control unit that can wirelessly receive door-specifying credentials. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A modular access control apparatus comprising: a door side module located in a door and a frame side module located in a door frame, where the door side module includes a door housing, the door housing carries a door inductor coupled to door control circuits, the door housing also carries a door interface with the door interface having a door latch control output, and where the frame side module includes a frame housing, the frame housing carries a frame inductor coupled to frame control circuits, the frame housing also carries a frame interface with at least one power port to couple electrical energy to the frame inductor, the frame housing also carries a frame transceiver coupled to the frame control circuits, and where the frame transceiver receives a wireless transmission from a second frame side module located in a second door frame, the second frame side module including a second frame housing, a second frame inductor, second frame control circuits, a second frame interface, and a second frame transceiver. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinen (US 4,929,005, issued May 29, 1990) and Fisher et al. (US 7,388,467 B2, issued June 17, 2008). (Final Act. 2-17.) 2 Appeal2015-000739 Application 12/971,036 CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-9), we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1-18 on the basis of representative claim 1. ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issue:2 Whether, under§ 103, the combination of Heinen and Fisher teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations, "where the frame transceiver receives a wireless transmission from a second frame side module located in a second door frame, the second frame side module including a second frame housing, a second frame inductor, second frame control circuits, a second frame interface, and a second frame transceiver," and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 14 and 17. (App. Br. 6-9.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-17) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 31, 2014) ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief (filed Sept. 25, 2014) ("Reply Br."); the Final Office Action (mailed July 2, 2014) ("Final Act."); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Sept. 16, 2014) ("Ans.") for the respective details. 3 Appeal2015-000739 Application 12/971,036 the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2--4). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following. In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Heinen of a device for transferring electric power and/or information between a door frame and a door leaf, including a provision for communicating with an "access control central unit" which is used to: "open and possibly to bolt the door, for example by entering a code through a keyboard provided to this end, by using a magnetic card which is entered into a slot, by a remote control by means of a portable ultrasonic apparatus and the like." (Final Act. 2-5; Heinen Abstract, Fig. 3, col. 7, 11. 2-7, 40--45.) The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Fisher of determining a state of a door having a locking mechanism for locking the door, using a transceiver in wireless communication with a central processor. (Final Act. 5; Fisher Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, col. 3, 1. 49---col. 5, 1. 6.) Appellants argue "neither Heinen or Fisher et al. disclose the concept of control of door lock systems through other door lock systems," per the above-quoted limitation. (App. Br. 6.) This argument is unpersuasive, because, as the Examiner points out, merely reciting the language of a particular claim and asserting the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claim limitation, without more, fails to constitute a separate issue ofpatentability. (Ans. 2.) See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding: The Heinen reference ... does teach a frame side communication path (with corresponding components) located 4 Appeal2015-000739 Application 12/971,036 in the door frame, as can be seen in Fig. 3 of Heinen. The combination of Heinen in view of Fischer modifies the communication path in Heinen to use the transceivers as taught by Fischer. . . . a second door frame ... would be well within the scope of possible locations of placing the access control, as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (Ans. 2-3, see also Fisher col. 4, 11. 4---6 ("the central processor can control and/or monitor a plurality of doors in a multi-unit building").) The test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425(CCPA1981). Appellants further argue the Examiner errs, "because none of the cited references are directed to the problem solved by the claimed invention .... that of reducing the wiring in secured areas by wirelessly interconnecting door locking system." (App. Br. 9.) This argument is unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. In any event, Fisher does teach or suggest the use of wireless communication with "a plurality of doors in a multi-unit building."3 (Fisher col. 4, 11. 5-6.) 3 "In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls." KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. For a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the reference need not recognize the same problem solved by the Appellants. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) ("The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious."). 5 Appeal2015-000739 Application 12/971,036 In sum, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Heinen and Fisher teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. (Ans. 3--4.) Appellants do not point to any evidence of record that the resulting arrangements were "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also App. Br. 15 ("IX. Evidence Appendix ... "No evidence has been submitted with the appeal."). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle, "[ t ]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. CONCLUSIONS For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Heinen and Fisher, and we also sustain the obviousness rejections of grouped claims 2-18 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 6 Appeal2015-000739 Application 12/971,036 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation