13266911 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2017)

Ex Parte Bock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 24, 2017

13266911 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. BOCK ET AL. - 5 PCT 9504 EXAMINER BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3673 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/266,911 12/22/2011 25889 7590 08/25/2017 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. 1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD ROSLYN, NY 11576 Peter Bock 08/25/2017 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 Ex parte PETER BOCK and MATTHIAS BLUNCK Appeal 2016-001425 Application 13/266,911 Technology Center 3600 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sakai (US 7,231,791 B2, iss. June 19, 2007). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-001425 Application 13/266,911 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a device for actuating a closing mechanism of a lock. Claim 10, reproduced below with paragraphs and indentation added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 10. A device (23) for actuating the locking mechanism of a lock, said device comprising a fixing unit (1) for fastening the device (23) to a component at which the lock is also arranged, and comprising a handle (27) which is pivoting mounted about a rotary axis at the fixing unit (1) and through the rotation of which the locking mechanism can be manually actuated, and comprising a power transmission unit (8) which can be torque-proof coupled to the handle (27) to transmit the power applied on rotating the handle (27) to the locking mechanism, wherein the power transmission unit (8) is not coupled torque-proof to the handle (27) until a release code is entered and authenticated, and wherein the entry of the release code is effected by way of electronically picking-up at least one position of the handle (27) relative to the power transmission unit (8), and wherein the power transmission unit (8) comprises a coupling mechanism through which the power transmission unit (8) is torque-proof coupled either to the fixing unit (1) or to the handle (27). OPINION Appellants argue that Sakai does not teach “wherein the entry of the release code is effected by way of electronically picking-up at least one position of the handle (27) relative to the power transmission unit (8),” as required by independent claim 10. See Appeal Br. 9-15. Appellants acknowledge that Sakai teaches using a telephone, fingerprint, or tenkey “for activating the motor such that the internal structure becomes engaged or disengaged to allow or disallow the manual rotation of the cylinder case 2 Appeal 2016-001425 Application 13/266,911 from effecting locking or unlocking of the lock,” but Appellants argue that “each of these options ... is substantially different from a release code being effected by way of electronically picking-up at least one position of a handle relative to a power transmission unit.” Id. at 12. The Examiner responds that in Sakai “the release code is effected by a telephone or fingerprint.” Ans. 5. Though the Examiner is correct, using a telephone or finger to effect a release code is not the same as effecting a release code by “electronically picking-up at least one position of the handle (27) relative to the power transmission unit” as required by the claim. This requires more than merely electronically effecting the release code as taught by Sakai. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—18 is reversed. REVERSED 3