Ex Parte Emerson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 23, 2012

11594633 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte THEODORE F. EMERSON, ROBERT L. NOONAN, and
DAVID HEINRICH
____________________

Appeal 2009-013657
Application 11/594,633
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013657
Application 11/594,633

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a processor; and
a plurality of registers associated with the processor, the
plurality of registers being adapted to be accessed by the processor,
the plurality of registers being adapted to be placed in a locked
condition in which access to the plurality of registers is prevented, the
plurality of registers being adapted to be placed in an unlocked
condition in which access to the plurality of registers is permitted, and
wherein the plurality of registers is placed in an unlocked condition if
the processor is placed in a reset condition.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Crump (US 5,752,044).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 12 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Crump and Fasack
(US 4,823,290).
3. The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-18 of Emerson (US 7,181,510 B2).
Appeal 2009-013657
Application 11/594,633

3
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 11,
and 19, because “[p]lacing a register in a locked condition precludes access
to that register, but does not necessarily preclude access to the electronic
device in which the register resides.” (Reply Br. 4).
Issue on Appeal
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 11, and 19
because Crump fails to disclose the argued claim limitations?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ above contention.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2 and 12 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) We do not reach the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
DECISION
The Examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are
reversed.

REVERSED
tj