Ex Parte GobettiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201613215452 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/215,452 08/23/2011 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 05/25/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paolo Gobetti 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. H0027082 4874/113777 2240 EXAMINER LY,TOANC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2887 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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 PAOLO GO BETTI Appeal2014-009294 Application 13/215,452 Technology Center 2800 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6, 9-15, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention relates to cardholder access control systems which control access to a secured area. See Spec. 1. Claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent. Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below, with the disputed limitations in italics: 1 Appellant identifies Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-009294 Application 13/215,452 1. A method comprising: a plurality of terminal readers of an access control system each allowing or disallowing a user access into a secured area by opening a respective door based upon information read from a user's card; detecting a card within range of a terminal reader of the plurality of terminal readers of the access control system that provides access into a secured area; the terminal reader receiving information stored on the card from the card; a processor determining if the information stored on the card requires customization of any of a plurality of terminal characteristics; and wherein response to the information stored on the card requiring customization of any of the plurality of terminal characteristics, the processor changing at least one of the plurality of terminal characteristics to a user preference mode associated with the card including at least operation of particular commands to assist a user in transit to open a door into the secured area; and the processor maintaining the at least one of the plurality of terminal characteristics in the user preference mode at least for a time-out period that allows transit of the user into the secured area and wherein when the user customizes a first terminal reader of the plurality of terminal readers at a first location, the plurality of other terminal readers associated with the access control system are customized in the same manner for the same user. Br. 14 (emphasis added). 2 Appeal2014-009294 Application 13/215,452 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1---6, 9-15, 18, and 19, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rudge et al. (US 2007 /0067269 Al; Mar. 22, 2007) and Takahashi (US 2007/0227824 Al; Oct. 4, 2007). Final Act. 2-11.2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following to highlight and address specific arguments. Appellant argues the claims on appeal as a single group, asserting the combination of Rudge and Takahashi fails to teach two of the claim limitations: ( 1) "a plurality of terminal readers of an access control system each allowing or disallowing a user access into a secured area by opening a respective door based upon information read from a user's card," and (2) "wherein when the user customizes a first terminal reader of the plurality of terminal readers at a first location, the plurality of other terminal readers associated with the access control system are customized in the same manner 2 Claims 7, 16, and 20 also stand rejected, but are not appealed. Claims 8, 17, 21 and 22 have been canceled. 3 Appeal2014-009294 Application 13/215,452 for the same user." App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis added). 3 Specifically, Appellant argues that Rudge "is merely directed to a tag for gaining access into a computer system," and that Takahashi is a "camera-based system for detecting entry" onto an elevator. App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant asserts, neither reference teaches a terminal controlling "access into a secured area" and customizing "a plurality of other terminal readers ... in the same manner," both of which are recited in the claim. Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner responds that Appellant's argument mischaracterizes what the references teach and fails to address the combination upon which the rejection is based. Ans. 2-5. We agree. Takahashi is directed not to camera detection in an elevator, App. Br. 11-12, but rather a "radio wave ID tag system for control of elevator doors." Ans. 6 (citing Takahashi i-fi-1 6, 31, 32). The camera-based detection system cited by Appellant is in Takahashi's discussion of the prior art, and problems thereof which were solved by Takahashi's invention. Ans. 5 (citing Takahashi i12). Takahashi discloses, like Appellant's invention, a tag [card] reading system which can "reliably detect a passenger at an elevator [door] entrance" and control the doors based upon ID information in the passenger's tag. Takahashi i-fi-15, 59; Ans. 6. The teachings of Rudge, similarly, are not limited merely to gaining "access to a computer system" as Appellant asserts, App. Br. 11-12. Rather, 3 The precise limitations cited by Appellant are found in claim 1, which we select as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Independent claims 9 and 18 recite similar limitations. 4 Appeal2014-009294 Application 13/215,452 Rudge teaches various embodiments of an electric tag system applicable to "many electronic devices," including "cell phones, microwaves, automobiles, etc." Rudge i-f 2. Among the embodiments described in Rudge is a user interface in which preferences are extracted by a first terminal and then automatically utilized by other terminals to reflect the same user preferences. Ans. 4 (citing Rudge i-fi-123, 29). It is this customizable interface, not Rudge's general disclosure of system access control, App. Br. 12, that is relied upon by the Examiner in finding Appellant's second disputed limitation in Rudge. Id. Appellant, therefore, has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the disputed claim elements in the combination of Takahashi's elevator door control system and Rudge's customizable electric tag system. Final Act. 2--4. Appellant argues, nevertheless, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have "no reason to combine the [Takahashi and Rudge] references." App. Br. 12. Appellant asserts that "the problem solved" in Appellant's invention is "entry into a secured area based upon the needs of a user," and "none of the cited references are directed" to that problem. Id. Again, the record before us does not support Appellant's position. Takahashi, as discussed above, is directed to "entry into a secured area [an elevator] based upon the needs of a user [as encoded onto a tag]." See supra at 4. Rudge similarly is directed to entry or access to secured systems. See supra. As the Examiner explains, it "would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art" to modify Rudge with the "entry/exit control" of Takahashi "in order to cheaply provide access for users with handicaps or disabilities." Final Act. 4--5. We are not persuaded by Appellant's conclusory reply that the Examiner "has failed to establish any 5 Appeal2014-009294 Application 13/215,452 credible basis" for this rationale, Reply Br. 7. Rather, we find support in the record for the Examiner's rationale. See, e.g., Rudge i-f 17 (tag can store information "associated with .... groups of users," including "characteristics (e.g., disabilities)"); Takahashi i-fi-12, 5 (object of invention is "reduction in cost" of conventional passenger detection devices used for "operat[ing] the elevator in different ways respectively suitable for a person in normal health and a physically handicapped person"); Final Act. 4--5. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1---6, 9- 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rudge and Takahashi. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 9-15, 18, and 19. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation