Ex Parte Bongard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

13011027 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/011,027 0112112011
24201 7590 06/03/2016
FULWIDER PATTON LLP
HOW ARD HUGHES CENTER
6060 CENTER DRIVE, TENTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Bongard
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.
BONGP-85159 3850
EXAMINER
BARAKAT, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2016 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):
docketla@fulpat.com
eOfficeAction@fulpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER BONGARD
Appeal2014-003701
Application 13/011,027
Technology Center 2600
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
8 and 11-13. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 14--22 are withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-003701
Application 13/011,027
CLAHvfED SUBJECT ~vfATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to accessing a restricted location
with an emergency vehicle. Spec. Abstract.
Claim 8 is representative of the claimed subject matter:
Claim 8: A method for accessing a secured entrance
compnsmg:
approaching the secured entrance;
sending a request for entry through the secured entrance
using a first device, where the request is directed to a remote
dispatch;
receiving said request by the remote dispatch, and
identifying the secured entrance;
validating the request for entry using a control computer
running software for evaluating such requests, and providing a
result of the validating;
issuing a command from the control computer to the
secured entrance to allow access.
REJECTIONS
Claims 8, 11, and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Foster (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0248219 Al; October
25, 2007) and Kochevar et al. (U.S. 7,455,224 B2; November 25, 2008,
hereinafter "Kochevar"). Final Act. (mailed August 2, 2013) 2-5.
Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Foster, Kochevar, and Fanshawe (U.S. Pub. No.
2003/0117260 Al; June 26, 2003). Final Act. 6-7.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner's grounds for rejection (Final Act. 2-
7), Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br., filed October 31,
2013), the Examiner's response (Ans., mailed Dec. 5, 2013), and
2
Appeal2014-003701
Application 13/011,027
Appellant's Reply Brief (Reply Br., filed Feb. 5, 2013). \Ve are
unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 2-10.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
We are unpersuaded that Foster does not disclose claim 8's "sending a
request for entry ... directed to a remote dispatch" based on Appellant's
argument that, in Foster, "the cellular network is simply a medium by which
calls are delivered and one of ordinary skill in the art would not characterize
the cellular network as a remote dispatch." Reply Br. 3. Foster discloses:
a cellular device is utilized to send a command signal to a server,
which, in tum verifies the command signal and, upon
verification, transmits a control signal over a cellular network.
The control signal is received by a local access device that is
electromechanically coupled to a control unit for actuating the
moveable structure from a first position to a second position in
response to receiving the control signal.
Foster Abstract. We find that, to one of ordinary skill in the art, any of
Foster's server, local access device, or- as the Examiner finds - base station
of a "cellular network," meet the claimed "remote dispatch." Final Act. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that "remote dispatch" is not expressly defined
in such a way as to distinguish it from "a base station, any element of a
cellular network, or a cellular network per se." Id.
With respect to claim 8' s "identifying the secured entrance,"
Appellant argues:
There is nothing in the foregoing that teaches, or even suggests,
identifying a secured entrance. The Office Action relies heavily
on "inferences" and characteristics of cellular networks that are
not of record and not effective in demonstrating that the claimed
step was in the public domain prior to Applicant's disclosure.
The Office Action tries to circumvent the requirements for
showing patentability by arguing that "One of ordinary skill in
the art would consider transmitting an authorization signal from
3
Appeal2014-003701
Application 13/011,027
the control computer to the secured entrance is identifying the
secured entrance." But a person of ordinary skill in the art,
having only knowledge of Foster's disclosure and without
knowledge of Applicant's disclosure, would find no need to
"identify the secured entrance" because it is already known in
Foster.
The Office further argues that "a system utilizing a cellular
network has a need to identify the secured entrance regardless of
the party requesting access." This is not taught by Foster, but
rather ex post facto conclusions provided by the examiner.
Nothing in Foster teaches this claimed step, and the fact that
Foster could have been modified in a manner proposed by the
Office does not mean that it was obvious to do so.
Reply Br. 3--4.
We do not find Appellant's arguments to amount to a persuasive
rebuttal of the Examiner's finding that:
Foster discloses that the user requests access to a secured
entrance [Fig. 1 : shows multiple entrance; see also 0028; Fig. 6:
elements 166, 192], so it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art that an environment or application in
which there exist multiple entrances, potential exists for user
error in selecting the entrance.
Kochevar teaches inclusion of identifying a secured
entrance eliminates the potential of user error in selecting the
entrance. Kochevar teaches including GPS in the user device to
determine a proximity to the secured entrance in order to achieve
elimination of the potential of user error.
Ans. 5. We see no error.
We also note that Foster's disclosure of multiple secured
entrances (fig. IA) implies that a particular secured entrance must be
identified. We note further that "in considering the disclosure of a
reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings
of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
4
Appeal2014-003701
Application 13/011,027
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claim 11, we remain unpersuaded by Appellant's argument
that there is no reason to combine Kochevar's GPS location determination
teaching with Foster because "[t]here is no need to determine the location of
the land owner since he is in charge of when the gate opens." App. Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that Foster teaches there could be multiple
entrances giving rise to potential user error in identifying the entrance to be
opened and thus, use of a GPS location detection as in Kochevar, would help
reduce possible errors in selecting which entrance of Foster is to be opened.
Ans. 7-9.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's argument regarding claim 12.
App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner finds Fanshawe paragraph 10 discloses the
features of claim 12. Ans. 9. Appellant does not persuasively rebut this
findings and we agree with the Examiner.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
8, 11, and 13 over Foster and Kochevar, and the Examiner's rejection of
claim 12 over Foster, Kochevar, and Fanshawe.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8 and 11-13 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
5
Appeal2014-003701
Application 13/011,027
ELD
AFFIR~vfED
6