Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13618712 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/618,712 09/14/2012
69308 7590 09/01/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Allegion)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VE
SUITE 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4108
James W. Brown
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.
084556-9091-USOl 9480
EXAMINER
AKHTER, SHARMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
MKEIPDOCKET@MICHAELBEST.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES W. BROWN, JAMES W. OVERBEY, and
ALFRED S. LEVESQUE
Appeal2015-005992
Application 13/618,712 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Schlage Lock Company
LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005992
Application 13/618,712
Invention
The claims are directed to an electronic door lock operable to control
access to an access controlled area adjacent the inner side of a door.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. An electronic door lock that mounts to a door, the door
including an inner side and an outer side and the electronic door lock
operable to control access to an access controlled area positioned
adjacent the inner side of the door, the electronic door lock comprising:
an outer base connected to the outer side of the door;
an inner base connected to the inner side of the door;
a locking mechanism coupled to the door and movable between
a locked position and an unlocked position in response to a control
signal;
a control circuit disposed within the inner base and operable to
generate the control signal in response to the presentation of an input
credential;
an attachment interface at least partially formed as part of the
outer base;
a plurality of different types of credential readers each
selectively attachable and removable from the attachment interface
when the outer base is attached to the door to electrically connect the
selected one of the plurality of different types of credential readers to
the control circuit, the selected credential reader receiving data from a
user or the input credential and providing data corresponding to the
input credential to the control circuit, the control circuit generating the
control signal in response to the data; and
a communication module connected to the control circuit, the
communication module operable to communicate with a device that is
separate from the electronic door lock.
2
Appeal2015-005992
Application 13/618,712
Rejections
Claims 1, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 2008/0084299 Al, Apr. 10, 2008) and
O'Connor (US 6,330,816 Bl, Dec. 18, 2001).
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fisher, O'Connor, and Rorabacher et al. (US 5,855,130,
Jan. 5, 1999).
Claims 2, 7-9, and 14--19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fisher, O'Connor, and Baird (US 2007/0289012Al,
Dec. 13, 2007).
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fisher, O'Connor, Baird, and Frolov (US 6,286,347 Bl,
Sept. 11, 2001).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fisher, O'Connor, Baird, and Kraus et al. (US
2010/0283579Al, Nov. 11, 2010).
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fisher, O'Connor, Baird, and Rorabacher et al. (US
5,855, 130).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
3
Appeal2015-005992
Application 13/618,712
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1, because the combination of Fisher and O'Connor fails to teach or suggest
"a plurality of different types of credential readers each selectively
attachable and removable from the attachment interface," as recited in the
claim. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that:
[a]t best, O'Connor teaches an access control system with
separate embodiments each utilizing a different type of reader.
Nothing within 0 'Connor suggests that any of the noted
electronic key pad, magnetic card reader, smart card, or
Wiegand-effect, proximity, biometric, bar code, or optical
devices are selectively attachable and removable from the
attachment interface that is at least partially formed as part of the
outer base. i~\~s a result, none of the aforementioned readers can
be selected for electrical connection to the control circuit, as
claimed.
App. Br. 9.
The Examiner, however, finds, and we agree:
O'Conner clearly teaches a removable keypad carried by the
agent and plugged in to provide identity authorization and key
access to keep the reader out of the "elements" and remove the
possibility of tampering or vandalism to the reader (O'Conner,
Co 1. 11, lines 3 8--41). That single identified reader such as
keypad is selected from plurality of readers as 0 'Conner teaches
other access control devices may be used to positively identify
the user (Col. 10, lines 42-50).
Ans. 4.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the additional
4
Appeal2015-005992
Application 13/618,712
reader devices taught by O'Connor, e.g. magnetic card reader, smart card, or
Wiegand-effect, proximity, biometric, bar code, or optical devices, may also
be selectively attachable/removable from the attachment interface like the
keypad. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Fisher and O'Connor teaches or suggests "a plurality of different types of
credential readers each selectively attachable and removable from the
attachment interface," as recited in claim 1. Appellants' arguments do not
provide sufficient evidence or a technical line of reasoning to persuade us
that the Examiner's findings constitute error. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 2-20
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to claims 2-20. Appellants' arguments with respect
to these claims merely repeat the same or similar arguments already raised
or merely recite the language of the particular claim and assert the cited prior
art reference does not teach or suggest the claim limitation. See App. Br. 7-
13. Without independent arguments, however, such contentions fail to
constitute a separate issue of patentability. We, therefore, are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive
arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2015-005992
Application 13/618,712
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6