Ex Parte Bliding et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 12, 2014

11723088 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OLLE BLIDING, LARS KNUTSSON, and JOHAN HORBERG
____________________

Appeal 2012-0016841
Application 11/723,088
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-12. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for controlling a locking
mechanism in a lock device (140) for use in a home security system. In
particular, upon detecting an input signal including a knock, a wakeup unit
(320) containing an acoustic/vibration sensor (324) sends a wakeup signal

1 The real party in interest is PHONIRO AB. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-001684
Application 11/723,088

2
(326) (114) to a controller (313), which in turn sends a Bluetooth signal to a
mobile device (100) to lock or unlock a designated door (150). Figs. 1-3,
Spec. 11:16-29.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A lock device for controlling a lock mechanism in a lock, said lock
device having a sleep mode and an operational mode, said lock device
comprising:

circuitry for short-range wireless data communication with a key
device;

a controller, said controller being adapted, in said operational mode,
to authenticate said key device in order to decide whether or not to unlock
said lock; and

a wake-up device for generating a control signal to said controller to
cause exit from said sleep mode and entry into said operational mode, said
wake-up device including

a sensor for detecting an input signal, that comprises at least one
knock, and electrical circuitry for processing the detected input signal and
generating said control signal.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Salem US 4,197,524 Apr. 8, 1980
Kulha US 5,973,611 Oct. 26, 1999
Appeal 2012-001684
Application 11/723,088

3
Fukumoto US 6,912,287 B1 June 28, 2005

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 as follows:
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kulha and Salem.
Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kulha, Salem, and Fukumoto.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 11-20, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-7.2
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in finding
Kuhla and Salem are properly combined to teach or suggest a lock device
having a sensor for detecting a knock as an input signal, as recited in claim
1?
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to substitute
Salem’s acoustic sensor for Kuhla’s Doppler sensors because such
substitution would enable the system to detect a knock as an input signal

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 06, 2011), the Reply Brief (filed October
18, 2011), and the Answer (mailed August 22, 2011) for their respective
details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2012-001684
Application 11/723,088

4
thereby indicating that the knocking individual is present near the lock. Ans.
8. Therefore, the Examiner concludes the proposed substitution would
eliminate inadvertent unlocking as well as increase the battery life in the
vehicle controller. Id. at 10-11.
In response, Appellants argue the proposed combination is improper
because substituting Salem’s acoustic sensor for Kuhla’s Doppler sensor
teaches away from the invention, and would render Salem’s system unfit for
its intended hands-free remote entry of a vehicle by requiring the user to
knock on the vehicle door to gain entry therein. App. Br. 13-15.
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. Although the disclosure of Salem relied upon
teaches an acoustic sensor for detecting a knock as an input signal to a lock
system, we agree with the Appellants that the proposed substitution of
Salem’s acoustic sensor for Kuhla’s sensor would cause Kuhla’s vehicle
door to be unlocked only via a recognized knock pattern input, and no longer
by its intended hand free mechanism.3 Accordingly, because Appellants
have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need

3 We leave to the Examiner to determine whether the proffered combination
would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations under an alternative
theory of obviousness. In particular, instead of substituting one sensor for
the other, the Examiner may consider modifying Kuhla’s system to add
Salem’s acoustic sensor thereto thereby allowing the Kuhla’s vehicle to be
capable of both hands-free entry, as well as entry via a knock as an input
signal. This suggested combination would thereby yield a system with
enhanced vehicle capabilities, which would not do away with either method
of entry taught by the references.
Appeal 2012-001684
Application 11/723,088

5
not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Therefore, Appellants
have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kuhla and Salem.
Because claims 2-12 recite commensurate limitations as those in
claim 1 discussed above, Appellants have similarly shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-12 as set forth
above.
REVERSED

rwk