Ralph WiechersDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 27, 20212020000897 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/205,884 07/08/2016 Ralph Wiechers 510933 6138 53609 7590 07/27/2021 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. 2215 PERRYGREEN WAY ROCKFORD, IL 61107 EXAMINER LWIN, MAUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2495 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2021 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): RockMail@reinhartlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RALPH WIECHERS ____________________ Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BETH Z. SHAW, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 on June 30, 2021 (hereinafter “Request” or “Req. Reh’g”). In the Request, Appellant requests that we reconsider our Decision on Appeal of April 30, 2021 (hereinafter “Decision” or “Dec.”), setting forth a new ground of rejection for claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–20, as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s Request for Rehearing. For the reasons explained below, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked any point of fact or law in rendering our Decision. Hence, we deny Appellant’s Request. Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter pertains to a method allowing selected actions to be enabled by an access control apparatus. Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, the claimed method pertains to receiving a message requesting to cause an action, checking authorization for the request, and determining whether the action is to be caused by a first apparatus or a control unit. Abstract; Spec. ¶ 3. The claimed subject matter is used to control access by a person to an opening of a container; in particular, a parcel box or a parcel butler. Id. ¶¶ 4, 21. A parcel box is similar to a mailbox, but with greater receiving volume. Id. ¶ 4. A parcel butler may be a collapsible container that can be installed on a building or apartment door when required. Id. ¶ 132. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method, performed by a first apparatus, said method comprising: obtaining a message from a second apparatus, which is used to request the causing of an action, checking the authorization for the request on the basis of the obtained message, checking whether the action is an action that is to be performed or caused by the first apparatus or an action that is to be caused by a control unit that is separate from the first apparatus, wherein the first apparatus is one of a parcel box or a parcel butler or an apparatus fitted in or on a parcel box or an apparatus fitted in or on a parcel butler, and wherein the control unit is one of a control unit of a home automation system or a control unit of a central locking system of a building, and Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 3 if it is established that authorization exists and that the action is to be caused by the control unit, transmitting a request to the control unit to cause the action. Claims App. 1. Independent claims 11 and 20 recite a memory having computer program instructions coupled to a processor, configured to cause a server or apparatus, respectively, to perform tasks similar to those set forth in the steps of claim 1. Id. at 3, 5. Dependent claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–15, and 17–19 each contain the limitations of their respective independent claims. Id. at 1–5. ANALYSIS A rehearing request “must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2019); see Ex parte Quist, 95 USPQ2d 1140, 1141 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). An appellant should not use a rehearing request as a vehicle to express disagreement with a Board decision or rehash arguments previously presented. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). An appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision should seek judicial review, not file a rehearing request to reargue already decided issues. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. Here, Appellant argues that we misapprehended or overlooked “the consequences of the proposed modification of Benoit and Conlin according to Van Rysselberghe” in rendering our Decision. Req. Reh’g 5. In our Decision, we set forth a new ground based on the teaching of a remotely lockable and unlockable apparatus that may be a parcel box or parcel butler, as provided by Van Rysselberghe. We stated: Van Rysselberghe is directed to remotely operable locks to secure a building or a locker. Van Rysselberghe ¶ 6. The locker, which is an enclosure that may be anchored to the Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 4 ground or to a building, “may be located at a residence, business, or other dwelling for receiving delivery of goods.” Id. ¶ 16. The locker may be used to receive mail and packages, such as from the U.S. Postal Service or United Parcel Service, when the owner is away. Id. ¶ 2. Because Van Rysselberghe’s locker is a container that is separate from a building or residence, we find the locker to teach a “parcel box” and “parcel butler” under their plain meaning in view of the Specification. See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 131. With respect to the operation of the locker, Van Rysselberghe describes a first apparatus (e-lock 68) that obtains a message (via data input 75) which is used to request the causing of an action (actuating latch 71 to gain access to locker 70 of e-lock 68). Van Rysselberghe at Fig. 2, ¶¶ 39–40. Subsequently, Van Rysselberghe checks the authorization for the request on the basis of the obtained message through microprocessor 74, which “is programmed to determine, based on instructions from a remote lock server, whether entry criteria are satisfied.” Id. ¶¶ 40, 45. This procedure may be used to access either an exterior locker or the front door of a residence. Id. ¶ 43. Because of the similarities in the remote access operations of Benoit and Van Rysselberghe, a skilled artisan at the time of Appellant’s invention would have found it obvious to modify Benoit and Conlin with the teachings of Van Rysselberghe to have the first apparatus be one of a parcel box or a parcel butler, or an apparatus fitted in or on either a parcel box or a parcel butler. Whereas Benoit teaches access to the door of a building through a remote access lock, Van Rysselberghe teaches access to either a door of a building or to a parcel box/butler in the form of a locker exterior to a house. Van Rysselberghe ¶¶ 16, 20; Benoit Fig. 1, 7:66–8:7. Thus, Van Rysselberghe teaches that a remote access system, such as used in Benoit, can be applied to either a door or to a parcel box or a parcel butler. Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 5 OPINION Appellant argues that the Board has overlooked that substitution of Van Rysselberghe’s locker (parcel box or butler) for Benoit’s door in Benoit’s remote access locking system (although providing the “parcel box” teaching missing in the Examiner’s rejection) would cause the combination not to teach or suggest that the control unit is of a central locking system of a building. Req. Reh’g 2. Appellant argues that because the system of Benoit involves a door of a building, the other features of Benoit’s device (including owner’s control unit 160) were also associated with a building, consistent with the claim limitation that the control unit is of a central locking system of a building. Id. Conversely, Appellant argues, by moving the access point 130 of Benoit’s device to Van Rysselberghe’s parcel box, the owner’s control unit 160 no longer controls permits unlocking of a building. Id. Therefore, Appellant reasons, the resulting combination no longer teaches a control unit that is of a central locking system of a building. Id. We are not persuaded by this argument, for the reasons explained below. As noted in the Decision, Van Rysselberghe’s parcel box may be “anchored to” a building. Decision at 8–9 (citing Van Rysselberghe ¶ 16, which states that a “locker may also be referred to as an ‘enclosure,’” which “may be anchored to the ground or a building”). The combination of Benoit and Van Rysselberghe results in the Benoit’s control unit interacting with Van Rysselberghe’s building-anchored parcel box. Dec. 9–10. Such interaction is no different than the interaction of Benoit’s control box with Benoit’s access-controlled door 120. Consequently, the structure of Benoit’s control box, and the actions taken by Benoit’s control box in performance of the method, are unchanged in the combination set forth in the Decision. Id. Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 6 The sole change by the inclusion of Van Rysselberghe’s teachings in the Decision’s combination is that the locked apparatus, the claimed “first apparatus,” is a parcel box as taught by Van Rysselberghe. As noted in the Decision, Van Rysselberghe teaches that either a door or a locker (parcel box) may be remotely opened, in a method similar to that of Benoit. Id. Appellant does not argue that the control unit of Benoit, as taught in Benoit, fails to teach the claimed control unit. Nor does Appellant argue that the teachings of Conlin, relating to the causing of an action by the control unit (rather than by the first apparatus), are disturbed. Conlin describes control of multiple access points and that such access points may be a door or other lockable apparatus. Conlin ¶ 26. For example, Conlin describes a central access control 120 associated with multiple access points 150 to be opened, where the access points may be a “door or other ap[p]aratus used to control access.” Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. Upon review of the combined teachings of the references, we are not persuaded that Benoit’s teaching of a control unit, as combined with Conlin’s causing of an action by the control unit, is altered by interacting with Van Rysselberghe’s locker in the same manner as with Benoit’s door. With respect to Appellant’s contention that the combination would move the access point 130 from the building to the parcel box (Req. Reh’g 2), the rejection does not include such a modification, nor are we persuaded that such a modification would be necessary. Figure 1 of Benoit, reproduced below, illustrates structure 124 as a building, containing an owner access point 130 and a door 120 having lock 122. Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 7 Figure 1, above, shows an example diagram of an embodiment of Benoit. Benoit 1:58–59. Appellant has not explained why the Figure 1 embodiment of Benoit including a remote-lockable parcel box anchored to building 124, in the same manner as a remote-lockable door, would require moving access point 130. Appellant further argues, “there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion to apply remote access to both a door (e.g., a central locking system of a building) and a parcel box/butler.” Id. at 4. Appellant further argues that Van Rysselberghe teaches separate systems for a locker (Figure 2) and a residence (Figure 4). Req. Reh’g 4. Appellant argues that Van Rysselberghe provides no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion that these two embodiments communicate with each other based upon a determination where the action is to be performed. Id. Appellant further argues that there is no case where the “message from a second apparatus, which is used to Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 8 request the causing of an action,” would be associated with a control unit as described in the claims, because “each code for each E-lock would be unique to and intended for that E-lock,” and therefore “there is no reason for the first apparatus to check whether the action is associated with the control unit” and “the first apparatus would have no reason to transmit the message to a control unit associated with building automation or a central locking system.” Id. at 4–5. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant argues against a combination of teachings that are not relied upon in the rejection; i.e., Van Rysselberghe’s locker-only and door-only embodiments, and the particulars of Van Rysselberghe’s control system. However, the test for obviousness is the test for obviousness is “not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference,” but instead “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As stated in the Decision, Van Rysselberghe’s teaches that a locker (parcel box or parcel butler) anchored to a building can by remotely unlocked in the same manner as a building’s door can be remotely unlocked. Dec. 9–10. Furthermore, Van Rysselberghe’s teachings are not limited to single- door or single-locker embodiments. Van Rysselberghe describes the control unit simultaneously providing codes for two separate locks in a building, such as a general entry code to a locked entry door of an apartment complex and an apartment-specific entry code to a personal front door inside that Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 9 complex. Van Rysselberghe ¶ 55.1 Van Rysselberghe describes parcel boxes (lockers) that are “anchored to,” and in some cases, located interior to the building. See, e.g., id. ¶ 52 (“E-lock 210 may be located on a locker space or room 212 in a storage or delivery facility 214”) (emphasis omitted). Van Rysselberghe describes unlocking various parts of a building, such as “an exterior locker, front door, garage, or refrigerator.” Id. ¶ 43. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the combination of Van Rysselberghe, Benoit, and Conlin would not be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to teach or suggest the claimed “control unit of a central locking system of a building.” Moreover, claim 1 recites the control unit to be, alternatively, a “control unit of a home automation system.” By focusing solely on the “central locking system of a building” alternative, Appellant has not explained how the combination of Benoit, Conlin, and Van Rysselberghe would not teach or suggest a system having a control unit of a home automation system. Consequently, we are not persuaded we overlooked or misapprehended any point of fact or law in affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–20. 1 An obviousness determination requires that “all disclosures of the prior art, including [other] embodiments, must be considered.” In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CAFC 1976). We thus consider the entirety of the references in weighing Appellant’s arguments that we have misapprehended the consequences of combining their teachings and suggestions. Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 10 CONCLUSION Based on the analysis above, we have granted Appellant’s request to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision. Appellant has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked any issue of law or fact in reaching that decision. Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s Request for Rehearing. Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted 1, 3–5, 7– 11, 13–15, 17–20 103 Benoit, Conlin, Van Rysselberghe 1, 3–5, 7– 11, 13–15, 17–20 2, 12 103 Benoit, Conlin, Van Rysselberghe Sadighi 2, 12 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–15, 17–20 Appeal 2020-000897 Application 15/205,884 11 Final Outcome of Appeal After Rehearing: Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1, 3–5, 7– 11, 13– 15, 17–20 103 Benoit, Conlin 1, 3–5, 7– 11, 13–15, 17–20 2, 12 103 Benoit, Conlin, Sadighi 2, 12 1, 3–5, 7– 11, 13– 15, 17–20 103 Benoit, Conlin, Van Rysselberghe 1, 3–5, 7– 11, 13–15, 17–20 2, 12 Benoit, Conlin, Van Rysselberghe Sadighi 2, 12 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–15, 17–20 1–5, 7–15, 17–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). DENIED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation