Ex Parte LambDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201613467919 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/467,919 05/09/2012 Michael Lamb 81230,909US 8467 34018 7590 12/28/2016 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER FAN, HONGMIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2016 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): j arosikg @ gtlaw .com chiipmail @ gtlaw .com escobedot@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL LAMB Appeal 2016-000155 Application 13/467,919 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-000155 Application 13/467,919 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—12 and 14—19. Claim 13 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The claims are directed to a security device providing system status. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for providing security status reporting by a status indication device, comprising: receiving a status of a first point of entry from a first security sensor monitoring the first point of entry; determining that an individual is leaving an area; in response to determining that the individual is leaving the area, determining a simplified security status based on at least the status of the first point of entry, and displaying the simplified security status in response to determining that the individual is leaving the area. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on We affirm. THE INVENTION REFERENCES appeal is: Markham Wang Maeng US 4,023,151 US 7,196,623 B1 US 2006/0220834 A1 May 10, 1977 Mar. 27, 2007 Oct. 5, 2006 2 Appeal 2016-000155 Application 13/467,919 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 4—7, 10—12, 14, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Markham and Wang. Final Act. 2—6. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Markham, Wang, and Maeng. Final Act. 6—7. APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS 1. In connection with the rejection of claim 1 Appellant contends Wang’s indicator of an undesirable condition is provided regardless of whether an occupant is leaving or not and, therefore, fails to teach the disputed limitation requiring determining a simplified security status ... in response to determining that the individual is leaving the area. Br. 7—8. 2. In connection with the rejection of claims 6 and 16, Appellant contends the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because a) “there has been no reasoning whatsoever of how control 14 is associated in any way with Appellant’s claimed ‘central security control module’” (Br. 9); and b) control 14 merely controls the operation of a tape recorder to provide a reminder message but does not “not monitor security devices, such as door/window sensors, motion detectors, tilt sensors, window breakage detectors, or any other device that could be considered related to security [as required by the central security control module of claim 6]” (id). 3 Appeal 2016-000155 Application 13/467,919 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—9) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—6) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. In connection with contention 1 Appellant argues “[Wang’s] remote warning signal is transmitted to the remote unit simply in response to the base unit determining that an undesirable condition exists, without regard as to whether a user has noticed the warning provided by the base station or not.” Br. 8. Therefore, according to Appellant, Wang fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1 because it does not respond to an individual leaving the area. Id. The Examiner responds by, rather than relying on Wang, finding “Markham disclose[s] a warning system wherein a warning message is activated when the person is leaving the area (col. 3, line 41-54).” Ans. 4. Appellant’s contention 1 is unpersuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner in finding, at least “[f]rom . . . the teaching of Wang [when] combined with the disclosure of Markham, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would easily come to a conclusion that a warning would be provided when the occupant is leaving the area.” Ans. 4. That is, although Wang may not explicitly disclose providing a warning in response to an occupant leaving a location, it 4 Appeal 2016-000155 Application 13/467,919 discloses such a warning should be available in the course of leaving a premises. See Wang col. 4,11. 37—45. By modifying Wang’s occupant warning to incorporate Markham’s recorded warning message played to a person upon detecting the person is about to leave their house, the resultant combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “in response to determining that the individual is leaving the area, determining a simplified security status based on at least the status of the first point of entry” as required by claim 1. In response to Appellant’s contention 2(a) arguing the Examiner has failed to provide reasoning of how Markham’s control 14 is associated with the claimed central security control module (Br. 9), the Examiner explains control 14 includes circuitry for detecting activation of a door sensor for controlling the operation of a tape player to provide a message to a person in the process of leaving their house. Ans. 5. In support of a conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner finds one skilled in the art would have incorporated Wang’s system to remind a person leaving a house of things to be checked into Wang’s system “so that the person would know the status [of] the first point [of] entry (garage door) prior to leaving.” Final Act. 4. In the absence of sufficient evidence or technical explanation in rebuttal, Appellant’s contention 2(a) is unpersuasive of Examiner error. We find it clear from the record how and why the Examiner relies on Markham’s control 14 for teaching the disputed central security control module in rejecting claim 1. “[A]ll that is required of the [Patent] [0]ffice to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of [35 5 Appeal 2016-000155 Application 13/467,919 U.S.C.] § 132.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In contrast, Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365—66 (citing Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)). Furthermore, we find insufficient and unpersuasive Appellant’s allegation the Examiner’s conclusion of obvious is not supported by sufficient articulated reason with rational underpinning; instead, we find the Examiner’s reasoning (discussed above) persuasive and concur with the Examiner’s conclusion. Therefore, Appellant’s contention 2(a) is unpersuasive of error. In connection with contention 2(b) Appellant argues Markham’s control 14 is insufficient to teach a central security control module because it “does not monitor security devices, such as door/window sensors, motion detectors, tilt sensors, window breakage detectors, or any other device that could be considered related to security.” Br. 9. We disagree. As found by the Examiner, “control 14 monitors a door sensor (the mat switch 12) and controls the overall operation of the system. Therefore, it constitutes a central security control module.” Ans. 6. In contrast, Appellant provide insufficient evidence the disputed central security control module necessarily includes the argued features which are otherwise not recited by claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 and are, therefore, unpersuasive of Examiner error. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent claims 6, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Markham and Wang together with the rejections of dependent claims 4, 6 Appeal 2016-000155 Application 13/467,919 5,1, 10, 11, 17, and 18 which are not argued separately. We further sustain the rejection of dependent 2, 3, 8, 9, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Markham, Wang, and Maeng, these dependent claims also not argued separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—12 and 14—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)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation