Ex Parte 8009042 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2014

95001821 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/001,821 12/02/2011 8009042 CP00185-US-Re 1078
2352 7590 10/15/2014
OSTROLENK FABER LLP
1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LINH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC.
Requester

v.

LUTRON ELECTRONICS, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2014-008598
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/001,821
United States Patent 8,009,042 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 8, 16–18, 35–40, and 42–44. Claims 12, 13,
15, 20–34, 41, and 45–50 are not subject to reexamination, and claims 6, 9–
11, 14,1 and 19 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 315. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for inter partes reexamination
filed on behalf of Requester, on December 2, 2011, of United States Patent
8,009,042 (“the ’042 patent”), issued to Steiner et al. on August 30, 2011.
The ‘042 patent describes a radio-frequency (RF) lighting control
system with occupancy sensing. In particular, a load control device controls
an electrical load responsive to wireless control signals received from the
sensors. In one implementation, the sensors monitor the ambient light level,
and separately transmit an “occupied-no-action” RF signal if the ambient
light is larger than a given value, such that the load remains in its last
condition responsive to this transmission. See generally Abstract; col. 7, l. 6
– col. 8, l. 29. Claim 1 is reproduced below:

1 Although the Examiner’s Right of Appeal Notice mailed December 20,
2013 (“RAN) indicates that claim 14 is pending, the Examiner later entered
Patent Owner’s amendment filed with the Appeal Brief on March 21, 2014
(“Br.”) cancelling claim 14. See Br. 2 (noting this cancellation); see also
Examiner’s Answer mailed May 23, 2014 (“Ans.”) (confirming entry of this
amendment).
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

3
1. A radio-frequency load control system with occupancy
sensing comprising:

a load control device connected between an AC power source
and an electrical load, said load control device containing an RF
receiver circuit for receiving radio frequency signals; and first and
second battery-powered occupancy sensors, each occupancy sensor
fixable to a surface of a room in which said electrical load is located
for transmitting an RF signal in response to the presence of an
occupant in said room, said second occupancy sensor spaced from the
location of said first occupancy sensor, each occupancy sensor
comprising an enclosed plastic housing including at least one battery,
a detector for sensing the presence or absence of occupants in said
room, and a RF transmitter circuit for producing said RF signal which
is modulated to indicate the presence or absence of said occupant in
said room, the RF signals of said occupancy sensors having respective
identifying information to identify themselves to the load control
device;

wherein said load control device receives said RF signals
transmitted by said occupancy sensors and controls the current
supplied to said electrical load in a predetermined dependence on the
detection of an occupancy or a vacancy in said room;

wherein said battery-operated occupancy sensors further
comprise ambient light detectors, such that said occupancy sensors
transmit said RF signals in accordance with the level of ambient light
within the area; and

further wherein said first and second battery-operated
occupancy sensors monitor the ambient light level in their respective
areas of the room and separately transmit an occupied-no-action RF
signal if the ambient light level is larger than a given value, whereby
the lighting load remains in its last condition in response to the
transmission of the occupied-no-action RF signal.

Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

4
THE APPEALED REJECTIONS
Requester appeals the Examiner’s rejecting the claims as follows:
Claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mosebrook
(US 5,905,442; May 18, 1999), CARD ACCESS INHOME™ WIRELESS MOTION
SENSOR INSTALLATION GUIDE (June 2007) (“Card Access”), and Eckel
(US 5,699,243; Dec. 16, 1997) (“Eckel I”). RAN 4.
Claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mosebrook,
Card Access, and Nishihira (US 6,166,640; Dec. 26, 2000). Id.
Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mosebrook,
Card Access, Eckel (US 6,138,241; Oct. 24, 2000) (“Eckel II”), and Baldwin
(US 5,764,146; June 9, 1998).2 RAN 5.
Claims 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mosebrook
and Card Access in view of Eckel II and/or Baldwin. Id.
Claims 7, 8, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Mosebrook and Card Access in view of Eckel I or Nishihira. Id.
Claims 35–38 as obvious over Card Access in view of either Eckel I
or Nishihira. RAN 6–8.

2 Although the Examiner articulates this rejection as “[o]bviousness based
on the combination of Mosebrook et al. and Card Access in view of Eckel II
and/or Baldwin” (RAN 5; emphasis added), the Examiner nonetheless
withdrew the obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 8 over (1) Mosebrook,
Card Access, and Eckel II, and (2) Mosebrook, Card Access, and Baldwin.
RAN 5–6. Accordingly, we treat the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 7 and 8 to be over Mosebrook, Card Access, Eckel II, and Baldwin
(i.e., omitting the “or” from the “and/or” language above). We also treat the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 16–18 as over Mosebrook, Card Access in
view of Eckel II and/or Baldwin as stated originally. Lastly, we omit
cancelled claim 14 from the Examiner’s rejections for clarity, and treat these
errors as harmless.
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

5
Claims 39, 40, and 42–44 over Mosebrook and Card Access in view
of Eckel I and/or Nishihira. RAN 8.

THE REJECTION OVER MOSEBROOK, CARD ACCESS, AND
ECKEL I

The Examiner finds that Mosebrook, Card Access, and Eckel I teach
or suggest the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons explained on (1) pages 3
to 6 of Requester’s Comments filed September 25, 2012 (“Sept. 25
Comments”), and (2) pages 1 and 2 of the accompanying claim chart (“Sept.
25 Claim Chart”), which the Examiner incorporates by reference. RAN 4–5,
9–10. In those incorporated comments, Eckel I is said to transmit a signal
that drives a green light emitting diode (LED) 84” when a room is occupied
and the ambient light level is greater than a given value. Sept. 25
Comments, at 4; Sept. 25 Claim Chart, at 2. According to the Examiner, the
lighting load remains in its last condition (i.e., the lighting fixtures 14 remain
powered down) responsive to transmitting this signal. Id.
Patent Owner argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
that each occupancy sensor separately transmits an occupied-no-action RF
signal if the monitored ambient light level is larger than a given value, where
the lighting load remains in its last condition responsive to transmitting the
occupied-no-action RF signal, as claimed. Br. 6–10. According to Patent
Owner, Eckel I does not disclose a sensor transmitting any kind of RF
signal, let alone transmit an occupied-no-action RF signal to another device.
Br. 8–9. Although Patent Owner acknowledges that Eckel I’s green LED is
flashed pursuant to some signal, this signal is said to be sent from
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

6
microprocessor 70 to activate the LED. Id. Patent Owner emphasizes,
however, that the prior art does not suggest transmitting an RF signal that
not only informs the load control device that ambient light is larger than a
given value and occupancy is detected, but also instructs the device to act
such that the lighting load remains in its last condition responsive to this
transmission. Br. 10.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Mosebrook, Card Access, and Eckel I collectively would have taught or
suggested two occupancy sensors that separately transmit an occupied-no-
action RF signal if the monitored ambient light level is larger than a given
value, where the lighting load remains in its last condition responsive to
transmitting the signal?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on Mosebrook and
Card Access for teaching the limitations of the first three clauses of claim 1
is undisputed. See Sept. 25 Claim Chart, at 1–2 (noting this fact). Rather,
this dispute turns on the Examiner’s reliance on Eckel I for teaching the
above-noted disputed limitations of the last clause of claim 1 in light of the
teachings of the other cited references.
As shown in Eckel I’s Figure 5, lighting control system 10 includes,
among other things, (1) a motion sensing circuit 76, and (2) photocell 82 for
detecting ambient light levels, where the signals of both sensors are provided
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

7
to microprocessor 70. Eckel I, col. 6, ll. 36–64; col. 7, ll. 36–58; Figs. 5, 7,
10. Signals are also sent from the microprocessor to red and green LEDs
84’, 84” and associated driver circuits shown in Eckel I’s Figure 9 that
(1) provide visual feedback to the occupant regarding the lighting control
system’s functional state, and (2) aid remotely-located customer service
personnel in assisting occupants identify the current mode and determine
system malfunctions. Eckel I, col. 9, ll. 17–47.
To this end, the green LED is driven in a solid illumination mode
when the lighting fixtures are powered down, and then toggled when motion
is detected to indicate that the system is in the daylight inhibit mode. Eckel
I, col. 9, ll. 28–32, 40–43. This daylight inhibit function prevents the
lighting fixtures from powering. Eckel I, col. 11, l. 65 – col. 12, l. 6. Thus,
when the motion sensing circuit detects an occupant in the room, the lighting
fixtures remain powered down if the measured ambient final value is greater
than a given value, namely the current daylight setting (CDS). Eckel I, col.
12, ll. 27–30. In this condition, the microprocessor drives the green LED
indicating daylight inhibit is in effect. Eckel I, col. 12, ll. 30–32; col. 13, ll.
4–8.
Based on this functionality, there is a signal in Eckel I that reflects
both an occupied and “no-action” condition when ambient light is larger
than a given value, namely that (1) an occupant is in the room, and (2) no
action is taken to power the lights such that they remain powered down.
Even assuming, without deciding, that Eckel I does not transmit this
“occupied-no-action” signal to another device via RF as Patent Owner
contends (Br. 8–10), the Examiner’s rejection is not based on Eckel I alone,
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

8
but rather the collective teachings of the cited references. Accord RAN 9
(noting “that the combination of Mosebrook, Card Access, and Eckel I
suggests occupancy sensors transmitting an occupied-no-action RF signal to
a load control device”) (emphasis added); Sept. 25 Comments, at 4 (noting
the motivation to modify the system of Mosebrook and Card Access to
incorporate a signal of the type taught by Eckel I).
As noted above, it is undisputed that Mosebrook and Card Access
collectively teach or suggest the recited elements in the first three clauses of
claim 1 reciting, among other things, a load control device that (1) receives
RF signals transmitted by two room occupancy sensors, and (2) controls
current supplied to an electrical load according to that detection. See Sept.
25 Claim Chart, at 1-2. Even assuming, without deciding, that the
Mosebrook/Card Access system transmits solely “occupied-take-action” RF
signals regardless of ambient light levels, additionally transmitting
“occupied-no-action” RF signals if ambient light exceeds a predetermined
value nonetheless would have been an obvious variation in light of Eckel I to
ensure that the controlled lights remain off in a particular ambient light
condition, such as a daylight inhibit mode. Such an enhancement
predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—
an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007).
Although Patent Owner argues the individual shortcomings of Eckel I
in this regard (see Br. 6–10), such individual attacks do not show
nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the references’
collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

9
(Fed. Cir. 1986). That (1) Eckel I at least suggests sending associated
signals to remote locations (see Eckel I, col. 9, ll. 35–40, col. 15, ll. 1–18);
(2) Mosebrook sends signals from occupancy sensors to remote locations via
RF (Mosebrook, col. 34, ll. 1–13); and (3) Card Access’ wireless system
uses radio communications3 only bolsters the Examiner’s position that
transmitting occupied-no-action RF signals to a remote load control device
would have been obvious.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–5 not argued separately with particularity.

THE REJECTION OVER MOSEBROOK, CARD ACCESS, AND
NISHIHIRA

We also sustain the Examiner’s alternative rejection of claim 1 over
Mosebrook, Card Access, and Nishihira. The Examiner finds that
Mosebrook, Card Access, and Nishihira teach or suggest the limitations of
claim 1 for the reasons explained on (1) pages 3 to 6 of Requester’s
Comments filed September 25, 2012, and (2) pages 1 and 2 of the
accompanying claim chart that the Examiner incorporates by reference.
RAN 4–5, 9–10. In those incorporated comments, the Examiner finds that
Nishihira’s comparator 84 transmits a high signal to microprocessor 58 if the
ambient light level detected by sensor 76 exceeds a given value. Sept. 25
Comments, at 5–6; Sept. 25 Claim Chart, at 2 (citing Nishihira, col. 3, l. 65 –
col. 4, l. 20; Figs. 2A, 2B). Nishihira’s lighting load is said to remain in its

3 See Card Access, at 1, col. 2 (“Communications” field of “Specifications”
table).
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

10
last condition responsive to this high signal transmission, even if motion is
detected. Sept. 25 Comments, at 6; Sept. 25 Claim Chart, at 2. Based on the
cited references’ collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to include Nishihira’s daylight inhibit control circuit
within the occupancy sensor(s) taught by Mosebrook and Card Access.
Sept. 25 Comments, at 6.
We are unpersuaded of error in this position. First, Patent Owner’s
contention that the signal sent from Nishihira’s comparator to the
microprocessor does not signal occupancy and is, therefore, not an occupied-
no-action RF signal (Br. 11–12) is unavailing. Not only does Nishihira’s
comparator output a high signal as long as detected ambient light exceeds a
certain threshold, but the microprocessor inhibits the output on the control
line “SIG”4 despite detecting motion. Nishihira, col. 4, ll. 1–7; Fig. 2A. In
addition, when the lighting fixture is powered on and the ambient light level
is sufficient to inhibit the microprocessor from powering the lighting fixture,
the relay 52 remains on with continued motion detection. Id., col. 4, ll. 13–
18. Moreover, the ambient light level inhibits energizing the relay if it was
already switched off. Id., col. 4, ll. 18–20.
This functionality at least suggests that there is some signal that
reflects both (1) an occupied condition based on detected motion, and (2) no
action is taken by maintaining the state of the relay under that condition.
Even assuming, without deciding, that the signal from the comparator is
based solely on ambient light level and not occupancy as Patent Owner

4 The line “SIG” is the microprocessor’s control signal output and is applied
to a flip flop 60 that is part of a relay control circuit 62 that controls
powering lighting fixture 56. See Nishihira, col. 3, ll. 3–17; Figs. 2A, 2B.
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

11
contends (Br. 12), Nishihira nonetheless at least suggests providing a signal
that reflects both occupied and “no action” states, namely an occupied-no-
action signal. And even if Nishihira does not transmit this “occupied-no-
action” signal to another device via RF, the Examiner’s rejection is not
based solely on Nishihira, but rather the collective teachings of the cited
references.
So even assuming, without deciding, that the Mosebrook/Card Access
system transmits solely “occupied-take-action” RF signals regardless of
ambient light levels, additionally transmitting “occupied-no-action” RF
signals if ambient light exceeds a predetermined value nonetheless would
have been an obvious variation in light of Nishihira to ensure that the
controlled lights remain off in a particular ambient light condition, such as a
daylight inhibit mode. Such an enhancement predictably uses prior art
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Although Patent Owner argues the individual
shortcomings of Nishihira in this regard (see Br. 11–13), such individual
attacks do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on
the references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–5 not argued separately with particularity.

Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

12
THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7, 8, AND 16–18 OVER MOSEBROOK
AND CARD ACCESS IN VIEW OF ECKEL I OR NISHIHIRA

Claims 7 and 8
The Examiner rejects independent claim 7 over Mosebrook and Card
Access in view of either Eckel I or Nishihira for the reasons indicated on
pages 10 to 12 of Requester’s comments filed July 11, 2013 (“July 2013
Comments”). RAN 5.
Despite nominally arguing claim 7 separately, Patent Owner reiterates
similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 that we find
unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed. See Br. 13. Therefore,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 over
Mosebrook and Card Access in view of either Eckel I or Nishihira. For
similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, which
was not argued separately with particularity.

Claims 16–18
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 over Mosebrook
and Card Access in view of either Eckel I or Nishihira. Claim 16 recites, in
pertinent part, keeping track with the load control device of the occupancy
sensors from which the load control device received the occupied-take-
action and occupied-no-action wireless control signals. The Examiner cites
Requester’s (1) “Comments – Section II-A-1” and “pp. 10–11” in
connection with the rejection based on Eckel I, and (2) “Comments –
Section II-A-2” and “p. 11” in connection with the rejection based on
Nishihira. RAN 10. Although the Examiner does not specify the date that
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

13
these particular comments were filed, we presume that the Examiner intends
to refer to Requester’s Comments filed October 2, 2013 (“Oct. 2013
Comments”) after the Examiner’s Action Closing Prosecution (ACP).
For the reasons indicated in these comments, we see no error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Requester’s comments further explain how the
Mosebrook/Card Access/Eckel I system teaches or suggests a load control
device keeping track of occupancy sensors from which the load control
device received occupied wireless control signals. Oct. 2013 Comments, at
7–9 (§ II.B.1). A similar explanation is provided for the Mosebrook/Card
Access/Nishihira system. Id., at 9 (§ II.B.2).
Patent Owner does not squarely address—let alone persuasively
rebut—this position to show error in the Examiner’s rejection based on these
references. First, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the cited prior art’s
not teaching or suggesting maintaining the electrical load in an unpowered
state responsive to a received occupied-no-action wireless control signal (Br.
14) is unpersuasive for the reasons indicated regarding claim 1 and by the
Requester. Second, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the obvious
“design choice” position noted in the initial reexamination request (id.) does
not squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—the particular findings
regarding the Mosebrook/Card Access/Eckel I and Mosebrook/Card
Access/Nishihira systems noted above.
We reach a similar conclusion regarding Patent Owner’s arguments
regarding Eckel II’s and Baldwin’s alleged shortcomings in this regard
(Br. 15–18), for these references are not germane to the Examiner’s rejection
based on Mosebrook and Card Access in view of either Eckel I or Nishihira.
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

14
Rather, Eckel II and Baldwin are cited in an alternative rejection of claims
16–18 as noted in “THE APPEALED REJECTIONS” section of this
opinion. Therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Eckel II and
Baldwin are inapposite.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 16, and claims 17 and 18, which are not argued separately
with particularity.5

THE REJECTIONS OVER CARD ACCESS IN VIEW OF ECKEL I OR
NISHIHIRA

Claims 35, 36, and 38
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 35
over (1) Card Access and Eckel I, and (2) Card Access and Nishihira. Claim
35 recites, in pertinent part, an occupancy sensor comprising a controller that
transmits first and second RF signals to a load control device responsive to
determining the ambient light level is greater than or less than a threshold,
respectively, where the second RF signal comprises an occupied-no-action
RF signal if occupancy is sensed.
The Examiner cites pages 13 and 14 of Requester’s Comments filed
September 25, 2012 and pages 15–17 of the accompanying claim chart as
teaching the recited limitations. RAN 6–7 (incorporating these comments by
reference).

5 Although Patent Owner nominally argues claim 17 separately (Br. 18),
Patent Owner reiterates arguments similar to those made previously that we
find unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed.
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

15
We see no error in this position. Although Patent Owner argues the
individual shortcomings of Card Access, Eckel I, and Nishihira in
connection with transmitting an occupied-no-action RF signal (see Br. 19–
20), such individual attacks do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the
rejection is based on the references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800
F.2d at 1097. Moreover, Patent Owner’s contentions that Eckel I and
Nishihira are silent regarding RF signals (Br. 19–20) are not germane to the
Examiner’s reliance on Card Access for teaching RF signal transmission.
See Sept. 25 Claim Chart, at 15–16 (noting that the Examiner’s undisputed
finding that Card Access discloses various recited limitations, including
those related to RF signal transmission). In any event, Patent Owner’s
arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on the
references’ collective teachings. On this record, then, the weight of the
evidence favors the Examiner’s position.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 35 over (1) Card Access and Eckel I, and (2) Card Access and
Nishihira. We likewise sustain the respective rejections of claims 36 and 38
based on these references, as these rejections were not argued separately
with particularity.

Claim 37
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 over (1) Card
Access and Eckel I, and (2) Card Access and Nishihira. Claim 37 recites
that the RF signal contains information for uniquely identifying the sensor.
We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the MAC address in Card
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

16
Access for at least suggesting this feature. RAN 7 (citing Card Access, at 1,
col. 3, ll. 21–31).
First, Patent Owner’s contention regarding the cited prior art’s lacking
an occupied-no-action RF signal is unavailing for the reasons previously
discussed. Second, Patent Owner’s contention that Card Access’ sensor
registration does not teach or suggest an RF signal that uniquely identifies
the sensor that sent the occupied-no-action RF signal is also unavailing, for
it ignores the Examiner’s reliance on collective teachings of the cited
references. On this record, we see no reason why providing identification
information in an RF signal in the Card Access/Eckel I or Card
Access/Nishihira system would not use prior art elements predictably
according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In any event, Appellant has not shown such an
enhancement would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the
level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the weight
of the evidence on this record favors the Examiner’s position.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 37.

THE REJECTION OVER MOSEBROOK AND CARD ACCESS IN VIEW
OF ECKEL I AND/OR NISHIHIRA

We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 39, 40, and 42–44
over Mosebrook and Card Access in view of Eckel I and/or Nishihira. RAN
8 (incorporating (1) pages 14 and 15 of Requester’s September 25
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

17
Comments, and (2) pages 17 and 18 of the accompanying claim chart by
reference).
Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Patent Owner
reiterates similar arguments made previously that we find unpersuasive for
the reasons previously discussed. See Br. 21.

THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Because our decision is dispositive regarding patentability of all
appealed claims based on the foregoing prior art references, we need not
reach the merits of the Examiner’s decision also to reject (1) claims 7 and 8
as obvious over Mosebrook, Card Access, Eckel II, and Baldwin, and
(2) claims 16–18 as obvious over Mosebrook and Card Access in view of
Eckel II and/or Baldwin. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2009).

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–5, 7, 8,
16–18, 35–40, and 42–44.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7, 8, 16–18, 35–40,
and 42–44 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
Appeal 2014-008598
Reexamination Control 95/001,821
Patent US 8,009,042 B2

18
In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED

lb

PATENT OWNER:

OSTROLENK FABERLLP
1180 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 100036-8403

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

Philip L. Kirkpatrick
CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC.
15 Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-2507