Ex Parte KauffmanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 20, 201814291088 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/291,088 05/30/2014 Morgan Draper Kauffman 23413 7590 06/22/2018 CANTOR COLBURN LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 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. DPKOOOlUS 1060 EXAMINER WEBER, JONATHAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3641 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/22/2018 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MORGAN DRAPER KAUFFMAN 1 Appeal2017-007013 Application 14/291,088 Technology Center 3600 Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1 and 3-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The Appellant is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-007013 Application 14/291,088 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to methods of authorizing the use of a weapon, and weapons with processors configured to perform the methods. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claims: 1. A method of authorizing a weapon, comprising: storing an authorization string at the weapon; receiving an authorization message at the weapon that includes a first substring obtained from a copy of the authorization string; comparing the first substring to a second substring obtained from the authorization string stored at the weapon; authorizing the weapon when the first substring matches the second substring; and de-authorizing and thereby disabling the weapon when the weapon is not re-authorized within a selected time interval. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bennett Kaminski Brown us 5,461,812 US 6,237,271 Bl US 7,921,588 B2 REJECTIONS Oct. 31, 1995 May 29, 2001 Apr. 12, 2011 Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Bennett. Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett and Brown. Claims 8, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett and Kaminski. 2 Appeal2017-007013 Application 14/291,088 OPINION Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 21 together. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant does not substantially address the rejection of dependent claims 8, 15, and 22 and therefore these claims stand or fall with claim 1. Appellant argues that claim 1 is not anticipated because Bennett does not teach "de-authorizing and thereby disabling the weapon when the weapon is not re-authorized within a selected time interval" as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant explains "Bennett ... does not teach using time as a limiting factor to de-authorize and disable the weapon." Id. at 9. This is because the distance between the gun and an activation device in the form of the presence of a ring "determines whether the gun is activated or inactivated." Id. The Examiner correctly responds that activation in Bennett's weapon is "dependent on both time and distance." Ans. 8. The Examiner further explains: Though there is a distance constraint applied to activation and de-activation, and this plays a major role in the activation and de- activation, there is also a time constraint because the system is checking at given time intervals whether the ring and firearm are located within the appropriate distance with the correct firearm and coded ring combination. Id. at 8-9 ( emphasis added). Appellant admits that: 3 Appeal2017-007013 Application 14/291,088 Bennett teaches that the gun transmits a signal to the ring, which then sends a message back to the gun with the ring's identifying number encoded in the message. The microcomputer in the gun after verifying that the correct identifying number is received, allows the gun to be fired. The process is repeated several times a second. An incorrect response or lack of a response prevents the gun from being fired. Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis added) ( citations omitted). It is unclear why Bennett's repeating of the verification process "several times a second'' is not equivalent to "re-authoriz[ ation] within a selected time interval" as required by claim 1. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20 Concerning dependent claim 4, the Examiner determines that "Bennett does not disclose using transmission time as part of the authorization message." Final Act. 6. The Examiner relies on Brown for this teaching. Id. The Examiner also relies on Brown for similar limitations in claims 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20. Id. at 6-9. Appellant correctly argues that Brown "does not disclose that the received authorization message includes receiving a transmission time of the authorization message." Appeal Br. 12 ( citing Brown 10: 14--3 6). The Examiner provides no response. 2 Finding no support in the sections of Brown cited by the Examiner, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20. 2 The Examiner does not respond to Appellant's arguments and incorrectly states that "independent claims 1, 9 and 16 were the only claims properly argued by the [ A Jppellant." Ans. 9. 4 Appeal2017-007013 Application 14/291,088 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22 are affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation