Ex Parte Denison et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

12261843 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/261,843 10/30/2008
7590
Phillip M. Pippenger
Miller, Matthias & Hull
One North Franklin Street
Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
02/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William D. Denison
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.
001065 P0019 5122
EXAMINER
KHAN,OMERS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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 WILLIAM D. DENISON,
CALIN V. ROATIS, and GARY L. MYERS
Appeal2014-004832
Application 12/261,843
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004832
Application 12/261,843
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-13, 54, 55, 57----66, and 68-78. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Illustrative claim 1, directed to a key management system for
management of electronic keys used to access electronic locks, is reproduced
below:
1. A key management system for management of electronic
keys used to access electronic locks, comprising:
an electronic key including at least one operation limit
parameter for determining if the key shall be rendered disabled
in accessing the electronic locks;
memory for storing audit trails data collected from accessed
electronic locks;
a computer employing an operating system for executing a
plurality of tasks, wherein at least one task is executed via a
software program for key management functionality;
a database containing key management data; and
a communication device external to the computer adapted to
communicate between the computer and the electronic key;
wherein the software program comprises computer-
executable instructions on one or more non-transitory
computer-readable media for performing a key data exchange
operation, said operation consisting of:
1 Appellant identifies Micro Enhanced Technology, Inc. as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2014-004832
Application 12/261,843
receiving a signal at the communication device from the
electronic key to initiate a key refreshing operation;
receiving the signal at the computer from the
communication device to initiate the key operation;
receiving one or more audit trails at the computer from
the electronic key through the communication device and
storing the received one or more audit trails into the
database;
retrieving from the database the at least one operation
limit parameter; and sending the at least one operation limit
parameter to the communication device and from the
communication device to the key.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rollins us 4,811,012 Mar. 7, 1989
Anderson et al. TTS ~-0?1-776 J11ne 4_ 1 991 -- -,~--, .. ~ - ----- - ' - ~ ~ -
Hyatt, Jr. et al. us 5,745,044 Apr. 28, 1998
Trichet et al. US 6,211,747 Bl Apr. 3, 2001
Chang et al. US 6,219,700 Bl Apr. 17, 2001
Harif US 2002/0133716 Al Sep. 19,2002
Rodriguez et al. US 6,975,202 Bl Dec. 13, 2005
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Harif, Rollins, and Rodriguez. (Final Act. 4.)
2. Claims 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harif, Rollins, Rodriguez, and Chang. (Final Act. 12.)
3
Appeal2014-004832
Application 12/261,843
3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harif, Rollins, Rodriguez, and Anderson. (Final Act. 15.)
4. Claims 54, 55, 57, 63---66, 69-71, 77, and 78 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harif, Rollins, Rodriguez,
Trichet, and Hyatt. (Final Act. 16.)
5. Claims 58---62 and 72-76 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Harif, Rollins, Rodriguez, Trichet, Hyatt, and
Chang. (Final Act. 20.)
6. Claim 68 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harif, Rollins, Rodriguez, Trichet, Hyatt, and Anderson.
(Final Act. 20.)
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that "no reference teaches a limitation that the key
sends a signal to initiate the process executed on the key." (App. Br. 4.)
ANALYSIS
The limitation at issue is "receiving a signal at the communication
device from the electronic key to initiate a key refreshing operation." The
Examiner found this feature in Rodriguez, as follows:
Rodriguez teaches an electronic key system. A user of a wireless
communication device 102 requests access to the contents of an
object locked by the electronic locking device 106. The key sup-
plier 104 determines whether or not to allow access to the user
and if so, generates a secondary key using the master key. The
secondary key is then transmitted to the electronic locking device
106 .... Rodriguez teaches ifthe key code is lost, it can be easily
reproduced by the key supplier at negligible cost.
(Final Act. 2-3.)
4
Appeal2014-004832
Application 12/261,843
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Rodriguez's "wireless
communication device 102" is "an electronic key" that sends a signal to a
communication device, i.e., at "key supplier 104." Because the reference
teaches that the signal is sent to "generate[] a secondary key using the master
key" and "should the key code be lost or misplaced, the key code may be
easily reproduced and provided to the customer without requiring the
customer to be physically present," we also agree that the signal may be
used "to initiate a key refreshing operation," as claimed. (See Rodriguez
5:46-56, 9:25-30, Fig. 1; see also Rodriguez 6:11-18 (teaching "the
secondary key may be sent to the wireless communication device in
response to receiving the [access] request" from the wireless communication
device).) We accordingly reject Appellants' argument that "no reference
teaches a limitation that the key sends a signal to initiate the process
executed on the key."
We also disagree with Appellants' assertions that there has been
confusion in the Examiner's position regarding how the subject limitation is
met. Both the Final Action, quoted above, and the Advisory Action
explained how this feature is taught in Rodriguez. (See Ans. 20.)
Because we agree that the combination teaches "receiving a signal at
the communication device from the electronic key to initiate a key refreshing
operation," and because Appellants do not argue that there is no motivation
to combine or that the references could not properly be combined, we sustain
the rejections.
5
Appeal2014-004832
Application 12/261,843
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-
13, 54, 55, 57----66, and 68-78.
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
6