Ex Parte Bilbrey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

13188429 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/188,429 07 /21/2011
62579 7590 08/25/2016
APPLE INC. (Brownstein)
c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP
41017thSt.
Suite 2200
DENVER, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brett Bilbrey
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
P9757US2 8154
EXAMINER
TRUV AN, LEYNNA THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
patentdocket@bhfs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRETT BILBREY, ALEKSANDAR P ANCE, PETER ARNOLD,
DAVID I. SIMON, JEAN LEE, MICHAEL D. HILLMAN,
GREGORY L. TICE, VIJA Y IYER, and BRADLEY SP ARE
Appeal2015-000272
Application 13/188,429
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and ROBERT
E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000272
Application 13/188,429
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1, 7, and 14 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A magnetically-implemented security device, comprising:
a first correlated magnet formed on a first structure, the first
correlated magnet comprising at least two unique magnetic surfaces;
a biasing member connected to the first structure, the biasing
member exerting a biasing force against the first structure; and
a second correlated magnet formed on a second structure; the
second correlated magnet authenticating the second structure with the
first structure; wherein a magnetic force of the second correlated
magnet overcomes the biasing force when the second correlated
magnet is in communication with the first correlated magnet to unlock
the security device.
7. A method for securely accessing functionality of an
electronic device, comprising:
magnetically coupling a key to a magnetic surface of an interior
element of the electronic device, the magnetic surface comprising a
plurality of sub-regions, each of the plurality of sub-regions having its
own magnetic characteristics;
moving the key;
in response to moving the key, magnetically manipulating the
interior element; and
in response to magnetically manipulating the interior element,
activating the functionality; wherein
the functionality is an electronic operation of the electronic
device.
2
Appeal2015-000272
Application 13/188,429
14. An apparatus for securely transmitting data to a computing
device, comprising:
a data receiver operable to receive data from a peripheral;
a data transmitter operably connected to the data receiver and
operable to transmit the data to the computing device;
a magnetic structure associated with the data receiver, the
magnetic structure operable to prevent the data receiver from
receiving data unless the peripheral has a complementary magnetic
structure.
Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Fullerton et al. (US 2009/0278642 Al; published November
12, 2009).
Appellants ' Contentions 1
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because
Unlike the biasing magnet pair in Fullerton, the biasing
member in independent claim 1 exerts a biasing force against
the first structure, where the first structure is a structure the
biasing member is connected to. Nothing found in Fullerton
teaches this aspect of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 further recites "a magnetic force of
the second correlated magnet overcomes the biasing force when
the second correlated magnet is in communication with the first
correlated magnet to unlock the security device." The Examiner
argues this aspect of the claimed invention is disclosed in
paragraphs [0330] and [0374] of Fullerton. These paragraphs
1 The contentions of error we discuss are dispositive. Appellants' other
contentions of error are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2015-000272
Application 13/188,429
disclose generating an attracting force and a repelling force to
close or open (or lock or unlock) an object (e.g., a door lock).
But Fullerton does not disclose a magnetic force of the second
correlated magnet overcoming the biasing force produced by
the biasing member against the structure the biasing member is
connected to when the second correlated magnet is in
communication with the first correlated magnet to unlock the
security device.
App Br. 8, emphasis omitted.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7 because as to Fullerton:
Nothing found in paragraphs [0380]-[0383] teaches
"magnetically coupling a key to a magnetic surface of an
interior element of the electronic device" and "in response to
magnetically manipulating the interior element, activating the
functionality [of the electronic device], wherein the
functionality is an electronic operation of the electronic
device." Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Appellant
respectfully submits Fullerton does not anticipate independent
claim 7 because Fullerton does not teach each and every
element of the claimed invention. The elements in Fullerton are
not arranged as all of the elements in claim 7, and the elements
in Fullerton do not function as all of the elements in claim 7.
App Br. 13, emphasis omitted.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 14 because:
Nothing found in Fullerton teaches [or] suggests any of
the elements in claim 14. Paragraphs [0405] and [0519] do not
disclose a data receiver that is operable to receive data from a
peripheral, a data transmitter operably connected to the data
receiver and operable to transmit the data to the computing
device, and a magnetic structure associated with the data
receiver, the magnetic structure operable to prevent the data
4
Appeal2015-000272
Application 13/188,429
receiver from receiving data unless the peripheral has a
complementary magnetic structure.
App Br. 15, emphasis omitted.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-21 as being anticipated
because Fullerton fails to disclose the argued limitations?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to above contentions 1-3, we agree with Appellants that Fullerton
fails to disclose the argued limitations as required by claims 1, 7, and 14.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-21 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) On this record, claims 1-21 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
5