Ex Parte Andresky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2014

11470660 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
____________
Ex parte DAVID E. ANDRESKY, NATHAN CUMMINGS,
PHILIP EARL CLARK, JR., GREGORY KENNETH FOSSEN,
MICHAEL WILLIAM MALONE, and THAD SMITH III
____________
Appeal 2012-011230
Application 11/470,6601
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17-19, 21-33, 35-39, 42-48, and 50-
53. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The rejections maintained on appeal are:
a) Claims 1-5, 9-10, 13, 15, 17-19, 21-33, 35, 36, 39, 42-48 and
50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Stewart et al. (US Publication No. 2007/0018793 A1;
published Jan. 25, 2007); and

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Assa Abloy AB. (Br.
2).
Appeal 2012-011230
Application 11/470,660

2
b) Claims 37, 38, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Horwitz et al. (US
Publication No. 2005/0083180 A1; published Apr. 21, 2005).

Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s finding that the subject matter encompassed
by claims 1-5, 9-10, 13, 15, 17-19, 21-33, 35, 36, 39, 42-48 and 50-52 is
anticipated within the meaning of § 102 by Stewart. We further find that the
preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims 37, 38 and 53 is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the applied combined prior art of
Stewart and Horwitz.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer.
We add the following for emphasis.
With respect to the § 102 rejection, Appellants’ main argument is that
Stewart does not show “a coordinator that can monitor RF activity within the
common area” as required in claim 1 (Br. 7). This argument is unavailing,
as it is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s applicants may amend claims
to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee.”) Contrary to Appellants’
Appeal 2012-011230
Application 11/470,660

3
contentions, the Examiner states the rejection does not rely on combining
two distinct embodiments of Stewart (Br. 8; Ans. 20-23). The Examiner
reasonably determined that the disputed claim recitation encompasses the
coordinator(s) depicted in Stewart (e.g., Ans. 20-23; Stewart, paras. [0037],
[0072], [0092] which each discuss a “network coordinator”). Notably,
Appellants have provided no credible evidence, or any persuasive line of
technical reasoning, explaining why the Examiner’s broadest reasonable
interpretation is in error (Ans. 20-23; see generally Brief; no Reply Brief has
been filed).
To the extent Appellants’ present separate arguments against various
other claims, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
position (e.g., Ans. 24-33).
The decision of the Examiner is 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).
AFFIRMED

cdc