Ex Parte Fitzgibbon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 201613777787 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131777,787 02/26/2013 22242 7590 10/03/2016 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1600 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James J. Fitzgibbon 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. 5569-98843-US 9907 EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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 JAMES J. FITZGIBBON and ERIC GREGORI Appeal2014-009645 Application 13/777,787 Technology Center 2400 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-009645 Application 13/777,787 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-9and14--18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to transmission of data including conversion of ternary data to binary data and converting the ternary data to a binary format to provide binary information representative of the information relating to the movable barrier operator, the converting done in a way not mirroring the first conversion method. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: preparing for transmission of data between a movable barrier operator and a peripheral device by: converting first binary data comprising information relating to the movable barrier operator into ternary data using a first conversion method; converting the ternary data to a binary format to provide binary information representative of the information relating to the movable barrier operator, the converting done in a way not mirroring the first conversion method; transmitting the binary information between the movable barrier operator and the peripheral device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Warner Farris US 4,243,976 Jan. 6, 1981 US 2002/0034303 Al Mar. 21, 2002 2 Appeal2014-009645 Application 13/777,787 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1-9 and 14--18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farris in view of Warner. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Farris teaches converting data from binary to ternary and transmitting the ternary representation of the data (i.e., Farris at para. 32), and Warner teaches converting data from ternary to binary to transmit the binary representation of the data (col. 1, 11. 35--45) (see App. Br. 9). Neither discloses doing both data format conversions for "preparing for transmission of data between a movable barrier operator and a peripheral device" as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9). Appellants further argue that the Examiner's motivation "to improve cost and reliability" is conclusory and based on hindsight (App. Br. 12). We do not agree with Appellants' argument. Appellants do not dispute that Farris teaches converting data from binary to ternary and transmitting the ternary representation of the data in a barrier operator system (App. Br. 9, Farris at paras. 32; 10). The Examiner cites to paragraph 11 of Farris that states for added security further Boolean manipulation and further processing of the ternary data is performed (see Ans. 3--4; para. 11 ). The Examiner identified the particular Boolean manipulation in the communications system of Warner wherein data is converted from ternary to binary to transmit the binary representation of the data for added reliability (see Ans. 5; col. 1, 11. 30--45). Thus, one skilled in the art would have recognized that the particular Boolean manipulation as 3 Appeal2014-009645 Application 13/777,787 taught by Warner could have substituted the additional Boolean manipulation of Farris, as described in paragraph 11, for added security as recognized in Farris. Substituting one Boolean manipulation for another, both manipulations shifting data, would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan. Farris already recognized that further shifting or conversion of data would add further security, the modification then, simply changes one Boolean technique for another in communication systems. An artisan is presumed to possess both skill and common sense. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 2-9 and 14--18. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Farris and Warner teaches the limitations of: converting the ternary data to a binary format to provide binary information representative of the information relating to the movable barrier operator, the converting done in a way not mirroring the first conversion method; transmitting the binary information between the movable barrier operator and the peripheral device. as recited in claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 14-- 18 is affirmed. 4 Appeal2014-009645 Application 13/777,787 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation