Ex Parte Blum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2016

12955189 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/955, 189 11/29/2010
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
08/09/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William R. Blum
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.
H0028206/4874/l 13287 7030
EXAMINER
TANG,SONM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM R. BLUM, ROBERT J. ORLANDO,
GORDON G. HOPE, and ALFRED M. LIZZA
Appeal2014-007327
Application 12/955, 189
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, all the pending claims in the
present application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to detecting an intrusion of a
secured area. See Abstract.
Appeal2014-007327
Application 12/955, 189
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
a control panel of a security system for a home, the home
has exterior walls, the control panel detecting an intrusion of a
secured area of the home wherein the secured area includes a
physical barrier to intruders including the exterior walls of the
home;
the control panel entering a delay period before reporting
the intrusion to a central monitoring station in order to allow
entry of a disarm code through a control panel where the
control panel is disposed on a structural surface within the
secured area and proximate an entrance to the secured area;
a sensor monitoring the control panel for movement
caused by physical attack of the control panel; and
the control panel reporting the intrusion before expiration
of the delay period upon detecting movement.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1, 5-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rodhall (US 5,463,595, Oct. 31, 1995) and
Trundle (US 7,619,512 B2, Nov. 17, 2009); and
R2. Claims 2--4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodhall, Trundle, and Comerford (US 7,760,091 B2, July
20, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20
Issue: Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings in Rodhall
and Trundle?
2
Appeal2014-007327
Application 12/955, 189
As an initial matter, Appellants contend "Rodhall et al. teaches away
from the claimed invention because its intended use for monitoring property
at an exterior site discourages its use within the secured area of a home"
(App. Br. 6).
The Examiner specifically points out that column 5, lines 61---65 of
Rodhall was cited to illustrate that Rodhall' s system is suitable for both
monitoring exterior sites and interior areas (see Ans. 3 (citing Final Act. 3)).
We agree with the Examiner.
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.
For example, contrary to Appellants' contentions, Rodhall discloses
that "[w]hile the security system 10 is ideally suited for use in monitoring
exterior sites, it may also be used in monitoring large interior areas" (5:62-
65). In other words, Rodhall does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the use within the secured area of a home, as proffered by
Appellants, but rather expands the use to such an area. See In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, we find Appellants'
aforementioned contention unavailing.
Secondly, Appellants contend that "Trundle et al. teaches away from
'entering a delay period before reporting the intrusion to a central
monitoring station' because it discourages the use of a time delay [s]ince
Trundle et al. discloses immediate transmission of an alarm" (App. Br. 6
(citation omitted)).
In response, the Examiner notes that "Trundle suggests that a home
security system includes a control panel which has a predetermined time
3
Appeal2014-007327
Application 12/955, 189
period to disarm" (Ans. 3--4 (citing Trundle 4:14--16)). Specifically, Trundle
discloses that "[ m Jost alarm systems may have a predetermined time period,
e.g., thirty or sixty seconds or even longer, to disarm the system after
entering the premises through a designated portal" ( 4: 14--16). The
"immediate transmission of an alarm" that Trundle speaks about is in the
event where a control panel is tampered with, i.e., a "crash and smash
intrusion," as opposed to a normal entry (see Trundle, Abstract). In other
words, Trundle does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage a delay
period before reporting the intrusion, as proffered by Appellants, but rather
describes a specific situation, e.g., crash and smash, where it is not
recommended. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Thus, again we find
Appellants' aforementioned contention unavailing.
Thirdly, Appellants contend that "since Rodhall et al. is a portable
device specifically intended to monitor property at an exterior site, it could
not be modified for use in a home without changing the principle of
operation of Rodhall et al." (App. Br. 6). As noted supra, Rodhall discloses
that "[w]hile the security system 10 is ideally suited for use in monitoring
exterior sites, it may also be used in monitoring large interior areas" (5:62-
65) and as such, Rodhall' s principle of operation would not have to be
changed, as proffered by Appellants. Thus, again we find Appellants'
aforementioned contention unavailing.
Finally, Appellants contend that "none of the cited references are
directed to the problem solved by the claimed invention ... for tamper
detection of a control panel" (App. Br. 9). As noted by the Examiner, and
we agree, "both references suggest[] security systems include the tamper
feature," i.e., crash and smash intrusion detection (Ans. 4). For example,
4
Appeal2014-007327
Application 12/955, 189
Rodhall discloses that "[t]he security system 10 further includes a shock
sensor 88, such as an acceleration detector, that detects impacts caused by
striking the security system 10" and "detects tampering with the case"
(7:61---66), and Trundle discloses "[a] savvy intruder may understand these
processes and take advantage of these delays by ... going directly to the
control panel to smash or destroy it" ( 4:30-36). Thus, contrary to
Appellants' contentions, both Rodhall and Trundle recognize the problem
associated with tamper detection of a control panel.
However, even if neither reference recognized such a problem, which
they do, we highlight that for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the reference need not recognize the problem solved by the
Appellants. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus,
once again we find Appellants' aforementioned contention unavailing.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections RI and R2.
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
5