Ex Parte Petricoin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2012

11103175 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DENNIS PETRICOIN, STEVEN A. MARKHAM,
CRAIG A. HAYDEN, and DENNIS M. CALER
____________

Appeal 2009-010620
Application 11/103,175
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-010620
Application 11/103,175

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-28. Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002). We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is a security system and method that senses a security
breach, and then provides indication to a user that an alarm signal will be
issued in response to the sensing of the security breach. Appeal Brief 2.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method of operating a security system, said method
comprising the steps of:
sensing a security breach; and
providing an indication to a user that an alarm signal will be
issued in response to said sensing step, the indication perceptibly
changing with time.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, 21-24, 26, and 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shankarappa (U.S. Patent
Number 5,877,676, issued March 2, 1999). Answer 3-6.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shankarappa and Friedman (U.S. Patent Number
4,929,936, issued May 29, 1990). Answer 6.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shankarappa and Seo (U.S. Patent Number 6,943,685 B2,
issued September 13, 2005). Answer 7.
Appeal 2009-010620
Application 11/103,175

3
Claims 25 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shankarappa and Beghelli (U.S. Patent Number
5,459,450, issued October 17, 1995). Answer 7-8.
Issue on Appeal
The dispositive issue is:
Does Shankarappa teach a security system that provides indication to
a user that an alarm signal will be issued in response to sensing a security
breach as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s reliance upon Shankarappa, column
7, lines 1-10 specifically, does not disclose or suggest that any alarm is
issued after a series of one, two, three, or four beep sounds. Appeal Brief 5;
see Answer 3. “This example cited by the Examiner is simply a
telephone ringing – not an alarm.” Appeal Brief 5. We agree. The passage
of Shankarappa cited by the Examiner refers to a telephone ringing not to an
alarm. Appellants conclude that “the telephone embodiment cited by the
Examiner simply indicates the number of rings of a telephone to permit a
person to estimate the amount of time remaining before the telephone call
will be forwarded.” Appeal Brief 9 to10.
The Examiner reasons:
In column 1, lines 8-26 and 46-65, Shankarappa clearly
explains that the telephone ringing devices with four different
indications before an alarm signal being issued (alarm calls
being forwarded after the four-beeps sound) and the fire alarms
are some examples of the Shankarappa’s invention that relating
to devices that generate alerts to indicate the occurrence of
events or conditions. Shankarappa clearly discloses “sensing a
Appeal 2009-010620
Application 11/103,175

4
security breach” with the use of “detector” in the abstract and
further in column 1, lines 14-27 and specially, line 20 of
column 1.
Answer 8.
We do not find the Examiner’s interpretation of Shankarappa
accurate. Shankarappa discloses:
The present invention relates to an alerting device. An
alerting device generates a signal to indicate that an event or a
condition has occurred. A smoke detector, for example,
contains an alerting device that commonly generates a loud
sound to alert people that smoke has been detected. Alerting
devices can be configured to signal the occurrence of a wide
variety of events or conditions, including equipment failures,
inventory depletion, resource consumption, emergency
situations, security breaches, communication attempts, timed
events and others. Alerting devices can also signal such an
occurrence in many different ways. For example, a smoke
detector for a person that is hearing impaired may illuminate a
bright, flashing light, instead of generating a sound.
Shankarappa, column 1, lines 14-27 (emphasis added).
Shankarappa further discloses:
Advantageously, the present invention generates an alert
that is varied to indicate the amount of time that has elapsed
since the current alert began. By observing the variation of the
alert, the amount of time during which the alert has been active
can be ascertained, and appropriate actions can be taken.
Shankarappa, column 1, lines 46-51 (emphasis added).
Neither of Shankarappa’s passages supports the Examiner’s
assertions. Independent claims (8 and 15) each has claim limitations
pertaining to “an alarm signal will be issued.” Shankarappa does not
anticipate claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, 21-24, 26, and 27.
Appeal 2009-010620
Application 11/103,175

5
In the obviousness rejections of claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20, 25, and 28,
the additional references do not address the deficiencies of Shankarappa.
See Answer 6-8. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
whether claim 1 reads on a standard household alarm. It appears that claim
1 reads upon a standard household alarm system because a household alarm
system upon sensing a breach starts to beep, thus providing an indication to
a user that if a code is not entered, an alarm will be issued. The more time
passes without the code being entered, the more rapid the beeps, and thus,
the indication perceptibly changes with time.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-28 under the various 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
103 are reversed.

REVERSED

llw