Ex Parte Kraus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2017

13618430 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2017)

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.
13/618,430 09/14/2012 Kevin C. Kraus 084557-9096-US01 9314
23409 7590 04/25/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke)
100 E WISCONSIN AVENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
MESA, JOEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2017 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 KEVIN C. KRAUS, GREG BALDAUF,
and MARK A. CATERINO
Appeal 2016-006202
Application 13/618,4301
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Schlage Lock Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006202
Application 13/618,430
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system that allows users to
remotely monitor and control devices in a home, such as door locks,
cameras, or appliances, through the Internet or by their mobile devices. See
Spec. H2, 59. The home devices are connected to a radio-frequency mesh
network and a gateway couples the radio frequency mesh network to the
Internet. Id. at 12.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A gateway for transmitting signals between a computer
network and a radiofrequency mesh network, comprising:
a housing;
a radio-frequency transceiver;
an Internet Protocol transceiver, operatively coupled to the
radiofrequency transceiver;
a power supply; and
a controller configured
to communicate with the computer network via the
Internet Protocol transceiver using a secure data
connection, and
to communicate with a plurality of devices in the
radio-frequency mesh network via the radio-frequency
transceiver,
wherein the gateway and the plurality of devices in the
radio-frequency mesh network each act as a communication node
that can directly send and receive packets of information to any
other device of the plurality of devices in the radio-frequency
mesh network.
2
Appeal 2016-006202
Application 13/618,430
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1—6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rappaport (US 2005/0042999 Al, Feb. 24, 2005) and
McCarthy (US 2008/0092199 Al, Apr. 17, 2008).
2. Claims 9—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rappaport, McCarthy, and Tran (US 2007/0290793 Al,
Dec. 20, 2007).
3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rappaport, McCarthy, and Ransom (US 2005/0144437
Al, June 30, 2005).
4. Claims 14—17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rappaport, Tran, and Ruuska (US 2008/0200120 Al,
Aug. 21,2008).
5. Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rappaport, Tran, Ruuska, and Bhanote (US 2007/0260475
Al, Nov. 8,2007).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue the proposed combination of Rappaport and
McCarthy is improper because it would require modifying Rappaport’s
personal area network from a tree network topology to McCarthy’s peer-to-
peer mesh network topology. Br. 8. According to Appellants, one of the
purposes of Rappaport’s UWB repeater devices is to filter wireless traffic
between UWB repeater devices in the personal area network which would
require all data to be transmitted through Rappaport’s UWB devices. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-006202
Application 13/618,430
Thus, according to Appellants, Rappaport’s UWB repeater devices require a
tree topology and modifying the network to a peer-to-peer mesh network
topology would render Rappaport’s UWB repeater device unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. Br. 8—9.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Rappaport explains that its
UWB repeater devices:
serve[] to “repeat” data signal coming from one or many devices
so that other devices, located farther away from the “source” will
be able to access the internet ... or other broadband “plant”
source via the repeater. This will obviate the need for any wiring
whatsoever in homes and offices.
Rappaport 144. Further Rappaport explains that the UWB repeater has the
additional advantage of suppressing data that is not part of the network such
as data originating from neighbors (noise) or from malicious attackers. Id. at
1145, 49, 50, 65. Thus, the primary purpose of Rappaport’s UWB repeater
to is to repeat data signals so that devices farther away from the source may
still receive them. The ability to suppress unwanted signals from outside the
network is an added advantage but not necessarily the primary purpose of
Rappaport’s UWB device. Further, Rappaport does not state that the
network must necessarily be configured in a tree topology to benefit from
this advantage, nor does Rappaport state that all traffic must flow through
the UWB repeater. Additionally, Appellants do not present persuasive
evidence that Rappaport’s network could not be modified to be configured
as a mesh network or that such a conversion would be beyond the
knowledge or skill of the ordinary artisan.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the combination of Rappaport and
McCarthy is improper. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
4
Appeal 2016-006202
Application 13/618,430
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—13, for which
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability. See Br. 9.
Claim 14
Appellants argue “Ruuska does not teach or suggest any relationship
between activation of the fast oscillator and completion of synchronization.”
Br. 10. Appellants further argue “[t]he fact that a transaction may occur
sometime after the Ruuska’s wireless communication device completes
synchronization does not imply or suggest that the fast oscillator is activated
in response to completing the synchronization.” Br. 10.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument because it is
incommensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 14 recites “increasing
radio signal power of a lock device transceiver associated with the lock
device in response to successfully completing the synchronization.” The
claim language does not require that the increase in power occur directly in
response to the synchronization, or immediately after the synchronization.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Ruuska teaches
increasing radio signal power due to initiation of certain transactions, nor do
they dispute that such an increase occurs after synchronization takes place.
See id.', see also Ans. 4—5. Thus, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 14, Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s findings that because Ruuska discloses increasing radio
signal power after transactions that require synchronization, Ruuska teaches
or suggests increasing radio signal power in response to completing
synchronization.
5
Appeal 2016-006202
Application 13/618,430
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. We
also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15—20, for which Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability. See Br. 11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are affirmed.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6