Ex Parte Bhandari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13062307 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
13/062,307 11/04/2011 Neelendra Bhandari H0020475-1161.1601101 3072
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
12/22/2016 EXAMINER
PATEL, RONAK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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 @ honey well, com
Honeywell.USPTO@STWiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEELENDRA BHANDARI, CHANDRAKANTHA C. REDDY,
JOHN DAVID MORRISON, MUSHABBAR HUSSAIN, and
NEIL MCDONNELL
Appeal 2016-002142
Application 13/062,3071
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—9, and 11—22, which constitute the only
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. App. Br. 3. The Appeal Brief pages are not numbered
and, therefore, we use the pages numbers identified in the Table of Contents
and utilize page numbers where appropriate.
Appeal 2016-002142
Application 13/062,307
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to interacting with access control devices using a
portable wireless device, such as a PDA (personal digital assistant).
Abstract; Spec. Tflf 1,2, 49. Claim 1 is exemplary of the matter on appeal
(disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method for commissioning and/or configuring an
access control device using a physical token and a separate
portable computing device at a site of the access control device,
the method including the access control device performing the
steps of:
(a) receiving data indicative of a physical local interaction
with the access control device, wherein the physical local
interaction with the access control device is defined by the
presentation of the physical token;
(b) responsive to the data received at (a), selectively
enabling a wireless communications protocol of the access
control device such that the access control device can
temporarily communicate with the portable computing device;
(c) accepting commissioning and/or configuration
information via the wireless communications protocol from the
portable computing device; and
(d) after accepting commissioning and/or configuration
information from the portable computing device at (c), disabling
the wireless communications protocol of the access control
device such that the access control device can no longer
communicate with the portable computing device.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—7, 9, 11—13, 16—18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodenbeck et al.
2
Appeal 2016-002142
Application 13/062,307
(US 2004/0174247 Al, published Sept. 9, 2004) (“Rodenbeck”) in view of
Conforti (US 2008/0106369 Al, published May 8, 2008). Final Act. 3—10.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodenbeck, Conforti, and Serceki et al. (US 7,321,784
B2, issued Jan. 22, 2008) (“Serceki”). Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodenbeck, Conforti, and Hill (US 7,367,497 Bl, issued
May 6, 2008) (“Hill”). Final Act. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Rodenbeck teaches claim 1 limitation (a)
“receiving data indicative of a physical local interaction with the access
control device ...” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Conforti teaches the
claim 1 preamble “commissioning and/or configuring an access control
device using a physical token and a separate portable computing device at a
site of the access control device.” Id. (citing Conforti || 18, 19). The
Examiner finds Conforti teaches the claim 1 limitations (b), (c), and (d):
(b) responsive to the data received at (a), selectively
enabling a wireless communications protocol of the access
control device such that the access control device can
temporarily communicate with the portable computing device;
(c) accepting commissioning and/or configuration
information via the wireless communications protocol from the
portable computing device; and
(d) after accepting commissioning and/or configuration
information from the portable computing device at (c), disabling
the wireless communications protocol of the access control
device such that the access control device can no longer
communicate with the portable computing device.
3
Appeal 2016-002142
Application 13/062,307
Id. 4—5 (citing Conforti || 3, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27).
In particular, the Examiner appears to find Conforti remote wireless
communicator 60 of the remote control system 34 is a portable computing
device. Id. at 5 (citing Conforti 126; see also Figure 3).
The Examiner additionally finds Rodenbeck transport device 94 is a
portable device which can be connected to remote access control system 22.
Advisory Act. 2 (citing Rodenbeck || 37—38; Figs. 3, 4).
Appellants argue Rodenbeck and Conforti do not teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 4—11; Reply Br. 2—8. As stated by
Appellants:
claim 1 is directed to a method for commissioning and/ or
configuration an access control device using (1) a physical token
and (2) a separate portable computing device at the site of the
access control device. According to claim 1, a physical token is
presented to the access control device, and in response to
receiving data indicating the presence of the physical token, the
access control device selectively enables a wireless
communications protocol of the access control device, such that
the access control device can temporarily communicate with the
portable computing device. The access control device then
accepts commissioning and/or configuration information from
the portable computing device over the established wireless
communication protocol. The wireless communications protocol
is subsequently disabled such that the access control device can
no longer communicate with the portable computing device.
App. Br. 5.
According to Appellants, Rodenbeck describes:
a remote control access system in which a central access control
system communicates wirelessly with a plurality of individual
4
Appeal 2016-002142
Application 13/062,307
door lock systems. The central access control system periodically
updates the individual door lock systems with information
pertaining to which access cards are permitted to access/open
which door lock system, for example. Rodenbeck et al. do not
disclose a system in which an access control device is configured
to carry out a method by which the access control device enables
a wireless communication protocol of the access control device
in response to an individual presenting a physical token to the
access control device, and then wirelessly receiving
commissioning and/or configuration information from a portable
computing device that is also in proximity to the access control
device via the established wireless communications protocol.
Such method steps are simply missing from Rodenbeck.
App. Br. 6.
Appellants argue Rodenbeck transport device 94 (which the Examiner
appears to consider as a portable computing device) is temporarily
connected through a wired connection and there is no teaching to establish a
temporary wireless connection as claimed. App. Br. 5 (citing Rodenbeck
137; Advisory Act. 2).
Appellants argue Conforti teaches wireless communication between
the remote control system 34 (which is part of the door lock system) and the
central control system 32, but does not teach establishing wireless
communication between the remote control system and a separate portable
computing device (separate from the central control system 32) that is at the
site of the remote control system. App. Br. 6—7 (citing Conforti H 18, 19;
Fig. 1); Reply Br. 4—8 (citing Conforti H 24—26; Figs. 1^4).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the cited sections of
Rodenbeck and Conforti relied on by the Examiner do not teach or suggest
the portable computing device set forth in claim 1. The cited sections of
Rodenbeck and Conforti teach access control systems which employ a
5
Appeal 2016-002142
Application 13/062,307
central control system which communicates with a plurality of remote
control access systems wherein aspects of the access control systems include
wireless connections and a portable computing device. However, the
Examiner presents insufficient findings regarding the claimed portable
computing device as required for obviousness. In particular, the Examiner’s
findings do not set forth the portable computing device as recited in
limitations (b), (c), and (d). As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection must be based on
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness ....
KSRInt’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 9 (which recites a portable computing device) and 18
(which recites a separate portable computing device). We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—8, 10-17, and 19—21. Cf. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[Djependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious .. . .”). Because our decision with regard to the disputed
limitation is dispositive of the rejection of these claims, we do not address
additional arguments raised by Appellants.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—9, and 11—
22.
REVERSED
6