Daniel Noblitt

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 19, 2021

2021000971 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2021)

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.
15/158,017 05/18/2016 Daniel J. Noblitt DJN.0117 1960
39602 7590 07/19/2021
NOBLITT & NEWSON, PLLC
DANIEL J. NOBLITT
8777 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE
SUITE 175
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
EXAMINER
VALENTI, ANDREA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2021 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):
docketing@ngtechlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DANIEL J. NOBLITT
__________

Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a control
system for controlling a pet door via a remote computer. The Examiner
rejected the claims as obvious. 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 the inventor,
Daniel J. Noblitt (see Appeal Br. 2). We have considered the Specification
of May 18, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action of Aug. 2, 2019 (“Final
Action”); Appeal Brief of July 2, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer
of Sept. 21, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief of Nov. 23, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
We note that the application is a continuation of US 11/738,257 which had
an obviousness rejection that was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“Common household pets, such as dogs and cats, may live largely
indoors, but need to be let outside to relieve themselves, exercise, or just to
avoid boredom” (Spec. ¶ 3). “Pet doors . . . allow the pets to let themselves
in and out, but present a potential security risk. Pet doors also let the pets in
and out regardless of the owner’s wishes” (id. ¶ 4).
The Claims
Claims 1–20 are on appeal. Independent claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. A control system for controlling a pet door via a
remote computer, comprising:
a locking mechanism configured to selectively lock
and unlock the pet door;
a controller connected to the locking mechanism and
configured to control the locking mechanism in response to
a control signal responsive to a real-time user input without
a contemporaneous visual human judgment based on an
image at the pet door; and
a wireless receiver connected to the controller and
configured to convey the control signal from the remote
computer to the controller.

The Issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kates,2 McLintock,3 and Lin4 (Final Act. 2–
6).

2 Kates, L., US 2006/0011145 A1, published Jan. 19, 2006.
3 McLintock et al., US 2002/0099945 A1, published July 25, 2002.
4 Lin, C., US 5,261,260, issued Nov. 16, 1993.
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

3
B. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Kates, McLintock, Lin, and Bonilla5 (Final Act. 6–9).
Because both of these rejections turn on the same references and
arguments, we will consider them together. Appellant does not separately
argue any claim. Therefore, all of the claims will stand or fall with
independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Findings of Fact
1. Figure 1 of Kates is reproduced below:

“FIG. 1 shows various elements of a dog training and management system
100 for managing a pet or animal such as a dog 101 . . . The system 100

5 Bonilla et al., US 6,954,695 B2, issued Oct. 11, 2005.
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

4
includes a computer system 103 to control the system 100” and includes
“one or more dog-door controllers 111” (Kates ¶¶ 37, 38).
2. Kates teaches “[i]n one embodiment, the management system
controls a ‘dog door’ to allow the dog ingress and egress into a house or
other structure” (Kates ¶ 9).
3. Kates teaches that the “door latch 712 allows the monitoring
system 100 to lock the dog 101 inside or out of the dog house as desired”
(Kates ¶ 187).
4. Kates teaches “[w]hen the system 100 detects a fire or smoke
alarm, the system 100 can open the dog door 111, instruct the dog to leave,
close the dog door 111 after the dog has left, and notify the owner/trainer”
(Kates ¶ 45).
5. Kates teaches that “the system 100 can recognize that a strange
dog or other animal is in the area and take appropriate action (e.g., lock the
dog door 111, notify the owner/trainer, etc.)” (Kates ¶ 178).
6. Figure 6B is reproduced below:

Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

5
FIG. 6B “is a block diagram of the remote control 112 for controlling the
system 100 and for receiving information from the system 100. The remote
control 112 includes a microphone 604, a loudspeaker 606, a keyboard (or
keypad) 612, a display 613, and a first RF transceiver 602, all provided to a
processor 601” (Kates ¶ 182).
7. Kates teaches that the “remote control 112 communicates with
the computer system 103 using the RF transceiver 602 to receive status
information and to send commands to the system 100. . . . The owner/trainer
can also use the remote control 112 to send commands to the system 100”
(Kates ¶ 183).
8. Kates teaches that “a remote trainer can use the Internet or
telephone modem to connect to the computer system 103 and remotely train
the dog or provide other interaction with the dog” (Kates ¶ 235).
9. Kates teaches that the “video camera 717 can be used to
provide a video feed . . . to the owner or trainer thereby, allowing the owner
to keep watch over the dog 101 from a remote location on the remote control
112” (Kates ¶ 186).
10. Figure 12 of Kates is reproduced below:

Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

6
“FIG. 12 is a block diagram of the base unit 104. In the base unit 104, a
transceiver 1202 and a computer interface 1204 are provided to a controller
1203” (Kates ¶ 232).
11. McLintock teaches “a system and method for controlling
physical access to doors and managing keys via a communication network”
(McLintock ¶ 1).
12. McLintock teaches that
door control/lock assembly 20 can also include a digital
camera (still or video) that is configured to provide an image
of the individual attempting to gain access to a person
assigned to make human judgements . . . The judging person
may then allow the individual in, if desired, by signalling the
door control/lock assembly 20 from the Web browser 52.

(McLintock ¶ 50).
13. McLintock teaches:
Many home owners with pets can configure a residential
door to be operable by the pets themselves such to allow the
pets access to and from the house while still providing security
against access by other animals or by human intruders. A key
can be assigned to allow the pet to use a pet door at will while
keeping it locked to others. Times of operation can be set by the
pet owner via a Web browser. Via the browser, as well, the pet
owner can be informed as to whether the pet is in or out, how
ma[n]y times the pet has gone in/out etc. An example of such a
key is an RF tag device. These tags provide a short-range radio
frequency signal that is coded such that the animal (and
possibly its owner) can be identified by reference to a registry
of such tags. The tag may either be implanted or mounted in a
pet collar.
(McLintock ¶ 65).
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

7
14. McLintock teaches that the “connection between the
communications network 80 and the door lock/control assembly 20 can be
accomplished via a wireless communication line” (McLintock ¶ 24).
15. Lin teaches “a remote-control door lock for dog cages, has been
devised to supply a door lock for a dog cage which can be remotely
controlled to unlock the door of the dog cage, thereby allowing the dog kept
therein to push open the door to exit the cage” (Lin 1:16–20).
16. Lin teaches the “remote-control door lock for dog cages in the
present invention, comprises an interface driving unit and a main controller”
(Lin 1:21–23).
17. Lin teaches
locking or unlocking a door of a dog cage by a signal from the
main controller, which receives a coded RF (radio frequency)
signal from a radio transmitter, decodes it and then sends a
signal to the interface driving unit. Then, one of the
electromagnetic solenoids in the interface driving unit is
energized to generate a magnetic field to retract the latch bolt
from a locked position to an unlocked position, allowing the
door of the dog cage to be opened, or the latch bolt is extended
from the unlocked position to the locked position, depending on
which solenoid is energized.
(Lin 1:27–38).
18. Lin teaches the remote control is advantageous because a “dog
can be released from a cage placed far from the owner’s house by unlocking
a remote control door lock of the cage immediately” (Lin 1:39–42).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

8
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id at 417.
Analysis
Appellant contends “[e]very instance relates to controlling the Kates
dog door directly and solely in response to the monitoring system 100 and its
sensors, not by a user providing real-time control from a remote computer”
(Appeal Br. 6). Appellant contends “the McLintock reference requires a
contemporaneous visual human judgment based on an image at the pet door
. . . The present claims require the contrary, that the pet door is controlled
without a contemporaneous visual human judgment based on an image at the
pet door” (id. at 6–7). Appellant concludes that “nothing in the references
supports the ‘position’ that a combination of Kates and McLintock responds
in real-time to a control signal without contemporaneous human judgment
based on an image at the pet door” (id. at 7). Appellant also contends “Lin
describes remote control, but does not indicate whether the system requires
or permits a contemporaneous visual human judgment based on an image at
the pet door” (id. at 8). Lastly, Appellant contends “nothing suggests
combining the references as advanced by the examiner, except by using the
present application as a template for hindsight reconstruction of the claims”
(id. at 9).
The Examiner responds that “[r]emote control of a pet door lock in
real-time without a contemporaneous visual human judgment based on an
image at the pet door is merely a known alternate, obvious selected mode of
operation” (Ans. 11). The Examiner finds “Kates teaches the general
knowledge of a remotely controlled pet door lock” (id. at 12). The Examiner
finds “McLintock teaches the general knowledge of real time operations of
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

9
remotely controlled pet door locks and Lin teaches the known situation of
remote real time operation of a pet door lock without visual human
judgement based on an image at the pet door” (id.). The Examiner finds
Lin is cited as further evidence to teach the general knowledge
of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is old and notoriously
well-known to provide an animal door lock system with a
control system that is configured to control the locking
mechanism in response to a control signal responsive to a real
time user input without a contemporaneous visual human
judgement based on an image at the pet door.
(id. at 11).
There is no dispute that each of the prior art references teach control
systems for controlling pet doors (FF 1, 11, 15), that each reference teaches
a locking mechanism configured to selectively lock and unlock the pet door
(FF 3–5, 13, 17), that each reference teaches to control the locking
mechanism in response to a control signal (FF 2, 14, 16), and that each
reference teaches a wireless receiver connected to the controller and
configured to convey the control signal to the controller (FF 6, 7, 12, 14, 17).
Thus, the only limitation in claim 1 in dispute is whether the
controller is configured to control the locking mechanism “responsive to a
real-time user input without a contemporaneous visual human judgment
based on an image at the pet door.”
We therefore frame the obviousness question as: Does the
combination of Kates, McLintock, and Lin render claim 1 obvious?
Each of the cited references teaches at least one way of controlling the
locking mechanism to let dogs, or other pets, out. In Kates, the computer
itself may clearly lock or unlock the pet door (FF 3–5). Kates also teaches
“a remote trainer can use the Internet or telephone modem to connect to the
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

10
computer system 103 and . . . provide other interaction with the dog” (FF 8)
and the “owner/trainer can also use the remote control 112 to send
commands to the system 100” (FF 7), reasonably suggesting that the owner
or trainer may operate “the management system [that] controls a ‘dog door’
to allow the dog ingress and egress into a house or other structure” (FF 2).
Appellant does not identify a teaching in Kates that requires visual
confirmation of the pet at the door. Thus Kates teaches that, without visual
human judgment, the computer may control the locks and suggests that an
owner or trainer may do so.
In McLintock, the “door control/lock assembly 20 can . . . provide an
image of the individual attempting to gain access to a person assigned to
make human judgements . . . The judging person may then allow the
individual in, if desired, by signalling the door control/lock assembly 20”
(FF 12). While McLintock’s device “can” include a camera (FF 12), the
word “can” has various definitions including as “be able to” or “have
permission to.”6 Thus, the ordinary artisan would understand that McLintock
suggests the camera may be present or absent. Therefore, McLintock
suggests at least two different controller situations, one in which a camera is
present for contemporaneous human judgment and one in which a camera is
absent and no contemporaneous human judgment is capable of being
performed.
McLintock also provides a third controller situation that “allows the
pet to use a pet door at will while keeping it locked to others” (FF 13). In
this situation, the pet is the user and operates the lock using a control signal

6 See, e.g., https://www.dictionary.com/browse/can (accessed July 9, 2021).
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

11
wirelessly connected that provides “a short-range radio frequency signal”
without a contemporaneous visual human judgment to lock or unlock the
door (FF 13).
Lastly, Lin provides an example in which a user sends a control radio
frequency from a remote transmitter to a main controller which results in
retraction of a latch from the locking hole that allows a dog to open a door
(FF 15–17). Appellant does not identify any teaching in Lin suggsting that a
human is observing the pet door lock either directly or using a camera or
other imaging device. And contrary to Appellant’s argument that Lin “does
not indicate whether the system requires or permits a contemporaneous
visual human judgment based on an image at the pet door” (Appeal Br. 8),
Lin teaches the remote control is advantageous because a “dog can be
released from a cage placed far from the owner’s house by unlocking a
remote control door lock of the cage immediately” (FF 18). The use of the
phrase “placed far from the owner’s house” suggests the cage does not
require contemporaneous visual human judgment.
We therefore do not find Appellant’s arguments related to each
individual reference persuasive because “[n]on-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. . . . [The reference] must
be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with
the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
In this case, responsive to Appellant’s argument regarding a reason to
combine, we conclude the combination of Kates, McLintock, and Lin
reasonably suggests four predictable variations for controlling a pet door:
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

12
1) direct control by a computer (FF 3–5); 2) control by an owner or trainer
without a contemporaneous visual human judgment (FF 2, 7, 8, 15–18);
3) control with contemporaneous visual human judgment (FF 12); and
4) control by the pet itself without a contemporaneous visual human
judgment (FF 13). Three of these four alternatives fall within the scope of
claim 1 and render claim 1 obvious because “[i]f a person of ordinary skill
can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. As the Examiner notes “[r]emote control of a pet
door lock in real-time without a contemporaneous visual human judgment
based on an image at the pet door is merely a known alternate, obvious
selected mode of operation” (Ans. 11).
While we note that an “[e]xpress suggestion to substitute one
equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution
obvious,” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982), Lin identifies such
remote control as advantageous because a “dog can be released from a cage
placed far from the owner’s house by unlocking a remote control door lock
of the cage immediately” (FF 18). Moreover,
a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known
options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but
of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact
that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was
obvious under § 103.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. As discussed above, release of a pet without a
contemporaneous visual human judgment is a known option well within the
technical grasp of the ordinary artisan prior to the filing of the claimed
Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

13
invention, and would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation
of success, indeed a virtual certainty of success (FF 1–18).
Lastly, as to Appellant’s hindsight argument, we are fully aware that
hindsight bias may plague determinations of obviousness, Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966). However, we are also mindful that the
Supreme Court has clearly stated that the “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. We agree with the
Examiner that the ordinary artisan would have reasonably found it obvious
to control a lock remotely without a contemporaneous visual human
judgment at least where immediate release is desired (FF 18) or where
release at the will of the pet itself as user is desired (FF 13).
For these reasons, we adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and
conclusion of law (see Final Act. 2–6, FF 1–18) and agree that Kates,
McLintock, and Lin render the claims obvious.
Conclusion of Law
A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that Kates, McLintock, and Lin render the claim 1 obvious.

Appeal 2021-000971
Application 15/158,017

14
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 9–
13, 15–20
103 Kates, McLintock, Lin 1, 3–7, 9–
13, 15–20

2, 8, 14 103  Kates, McLintock, Lin,
Bonilla
2, 8, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED