Ex Parte Sinha

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

12848468 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/848,468 08/02/2010
26096 7590 03/22/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anshuman Sinha
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.
67183-025PUS1;
PA0013838-
CONFIRMATION NO.
5994
EXAMINER
BARAKAT, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANSHUMAN SINHA
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge THOMAS.
Opinion concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge PENICK
THOivIAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-22, all the pending claims in the present
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 3 5 U.S. C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a security system that
includes a credential holder, including a credential database, indicating a
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
secure access location where the credential information is valid for
authorized access. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A security system, comprising:
a credential holder including a credential database
that contains specified secured area credential information
indicating at least one secured access location between a
specified secured area and a specified adjacent area where the
credential information is valid for authorized access;
an access control device at a selected position
corresponding to the secured access location, the access control
device being configured to receive the credential information
when the credential holder is near the access control device, the
access control device including a processor that has stored access
control information including an indication of the secured access
location between the specified secured area and the specified
adjacent area, the processor autonomously determining that
access to the specified secured area will be granted when the
received credential information corresponds to the stored
indications.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1--4 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Nielsen (US 2002/0180582 Al, Dec. 5, 2002) (see
Final Act. 2--4); and
R2. Claims 5-11 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nielsen and various other cited art (see Final Act.
4--8).
2
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
ANALYSIS
Claims 1--4 and 12-15
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Nielsen discloses secure
area credential information, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellant contends "[t]he specified secured area credential
information includes an indication of three separate pieces of information;
namely, at least one secured access location, a specified secured area, and a
specified adjacent area" (App. Br. 3) and "the Nielsen reference only
generically refers to an 'access code[,]' [w]ithout any teaching of the
claimed credential database and the claimed stored access control
information" (id. at 3--4). Appellant further contends that "the access code
of the Nielsen reference does not even indicate the secure access location
... the only check in the Nielsen reference is whether the access code
matches a code stored by a lock" (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner finds that "the claims fail to include any limitations
related to an indication of three separate pieces of information, namely at
least one secured access location, a specified secured area, and a specified
adjacent area[,] [t]he claims only require an indication of at least one secured
access location" (Ans. 5) and "any secured area and adjacent area specified
by installation of a secured access location ... satisfies these elements of the
claims" (id.). The Examiner further finds that in Nielsen "the credential
information operates to provide access to the at least one access location,
thereby indirectly indicating the at least one access location" (id. at 6). We
agree with the Examiner.
3
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
Specifically, Nielsen discloses "using the electronic key device for
requesting access to the location by transmitting the second access code" (i-f
27), comparing the second access code to a stored first access code
"indicative of a predetermined access right to the location," (i-f 25, 28), and
"[a] location according to the invention may be ... an area ... a location
may also be a part of a[ n] ... area ... access to different parts of a location
may be controlled individually" (i-f 34). Nielsen further discloses that "[t]he
memory 223 is capable of storing access codes valid for the lock control unit
221 . . . . If the received access code is valid, the processing unit 222 may
send a control signal ... thereby granting access to the location" (i-f 121 ). In
other words, Nielsen's access code is used to gain access to a secured
location. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Nielsen's access code
indirectly indicates at least one access location.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that "the claims fail to
include any limitations related to an indication of three separate pieces of
information ... [ t ]he claims only require an indication of at least one
secured access location" (Ans. 5). For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia,
" ... secured area credential information indicating at least one secured
access location between a specified secured area and a specified adjacent
area" (see claim 1) (emphasis added). The recited "between a specified
secured area and a specified adjacent area" is merely information in a
database, i.e., data content, indicative of descriptive material that does not
have a functional relationship with the access location. In other words, as
4
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
claimed, neither the specified secured area nor the specified adjacent area
have any functional interrelationship to the access location and does not
affect the way the security system performs. As such, the Examiner need
not give patentable weight to descriptive material that does not have a new
and obvious functional relationship with the substrate (nonfunctional
descriptive material). In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
see also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In a precedential
decision, an expanded panel held that elements that do not affect the claimed
process are non-functional material and are merely descriptive. See Ex parte
Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-88 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellant's arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 12 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not
argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2--4 and 13-15 (App. Br.
3---6). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claims 2--4 and 12-15.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 5-11 and 16--22
Appellant has not presented separate arguments for dependent claims
5-11 and 16-22 (see App. Br. 7-8). Therefore, these claims fall with the
claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's § 102 (b) and § 10 3 (a) rejections.
5
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
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
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANSHUMAN SINHA
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge, Concurring.
I concur with my colleagues that, as found by the Examiner, "the
claims fail to include any limitations related to an indication of three
separate pieces of information ... [ t ]he claims only require an indication of
at least one secured access location." (Ans. 5). However, I respectfully
disagree with the conclusion that the claim language "between a specified
secured area and a specified adjacent area" is descriptive. Instead, I would
find the recited "between a specified secured area and a specified adjacent
area" merely relates to an intended use for the claimed invention which,
even if not addressed in the prior art, does not defeat a finding that the prior
art anticipates the claimed subject matter. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
7
Appeal2014-005549
Application 12/848,468
Therefore, while our reasoning diverges, I agree with the majority that
the Examiner need not give patentable weight to the disputed limitation, and
thus I concur in the result.
8