Ex Parte Moller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2017

13040201 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2017)

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.
13/040,201 03/03/2011 Per Kristian Moller 5544-20 2439
22442 7590
Sheridan Ross PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
03/06/2017 EXAMINER
RUSHING, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2017 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):
e-docket @ sheridanross. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PER KRISTIAN MOLLER
Appeal 2016-007354
Application 13/040,201
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007354
Application 13/040,201
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—15 and 17—24. Claim 16 has been allowed. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method, comprising:
providing a tamper-detection device with a tamper
switch, a microcontroller, a diode connected between the
microcontroller and the tamper switch, and a capacitor
connected in parallel with the tamper switch, the capacitor
having a state of charge, such that the capacitor has a charged
state when no tamper activity is detected and a discharged state
when tamper activity is detected, such that closing of the
tamper switch in the absence of any power supplied to the
microcontroller causes the capacitor to discharge and after the
capacitor discharges and while no power is supplied to the
microcontroller change an input value for the microcontroller
indicating that tamper activity is detected.
Prior Art
Dawson US 5,493,279 Feb. 20, 1996
Brown US 2010/0031714 A1 Feb. 11,2010
Kamp US 2011/0110171 A1 May 12, 2011
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—5, 7—15, and 17—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dawson and Kamp.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dawson, Kamp, and Brown.
2
Appeal 2016-007354
Application 13/040,201
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Non-Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 1 recites “closing of the tamper switch in the absence of any
power supplied to the microcontroller causes the capacitor to discharge and
after the capacitor discharges and while no power is supplied to the
microcontroller change an input value for the microcontroller indicating that
tamper activity is detected.” Appellant contends that this limitation is not
taught by the combination of Dawson and Kamp. Reply Br. 2—A.
Appellant’s Specification discloses that
if the power supply is removed and the [tamper] switch 30 is
closed, the capacitor Cl will be rapidly discharged. When the
power is reapplied, the input at the microcontroller 304 is read
as a logical “0” until the capacitor Cl is again charged by the
pull-up resistor. Reading of the logical “0” during this time
enables the microcontroller 304 to report tamper even though
there was no power supply when the actual tamper activity
occurred.
Spec. 8:29—9:3; Fig. 6.
Dawson teaches that closing tamper switch S1 in the absence of any
power supplied from power supply 36 to microprocessor 44 causes capacitor
C200 to discharge, supplying power to microprocessor 44, so that the
microprocessor can record a tamper value in non-volatile memory 43. Col.
6,11. 54—63; col. 8,11. 49-64; col. 12,11. 50-59; Figs. 2, 3, and 6.
Kamp teaches that detecting an external tamper event in the absence
of any power supplied to read circuit 20 causes an energy harvester to send
an electric signal to non-volatile memory 18, so that the non-volatile
3
Appeal 2016-007354
Application 13/040,201
memory can record a tamper value. ^fl[ 28—30, 68—70; Fig. 2. When power
is later supplied to the read circuit 20, the tamper value is read. Tflf 43, 71—
72; Fig. 2. “Thus, the detection device of [Figure 2] defines a powerless
detection device.” 130.
The Supreme Court has recognized that “when a patent claims a
structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Replacing detection circuit 42 shown in Figure 3
of Dawson with non-volatile memory 18 and read circuit 20 of the detection
device shown in Figure 2 of Kamp represents the substitution of one known
element for another known in the field that yields a predictable result. Here,
the predictable result is, closing tamper switch S1 in the absence of any
power supplied to microprocessor 44 causes capacitor C200 to discharge,
sending an electric signal to non-volatile memory 18, so that the non-volatile
memory can record a tamper value “while no power is supplied to the
microcontroller” as claimed.
Appellant contends that the energy harvester of Kamp raises the
voltage on the input capacitance of the electronic unit. Reply Br. 4—5.
However, Appellant’s contention does not respond to the Examiner’s
combination, namely, that when the tamper switch of Dawson is closed, the
capacitor of Dawson discharges to send an electric signal to a non-volatile
memory as taught by Kamp. Ans. 10—11. Cumulative to the Examiner’s
findings, we highlight Paragraph 13 of Kamp teaches the harvester can be a
device that provides electrostatic discharge, such as a capacitor.
4
Appeal 2016-007354
Application 13/040,201
Appellant contends Figure 4 of Kamp shows set control circuit 30
receiving energy from the energy harvester, and therefore cannot be used to
show changing an input value “while no power is supplied to the
microcontroller” as claimed. Reply Br. 5. However, the Examiner relies on
the set control circuit shown in Figure 7 of Kamp. Ans. 9. Kamp discloses
Figure 4 as a second embodiment, and Figure 7 as a fourth embodiment.
1147, 63. Appellant does not persuasively explain why the teachings of the
second embodiment of Kamp apply to the fourth embodiment.
Appellant contends the set control circuit of Kamp is not equivalent to
the microcontroller as claimed. Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s Specification does
not provide a limiting definition of the claimed “microcontroller” that
excludes the set control circuit of Kamp. Further, Dawson teaches a
“microcontroller” within the meaning of claim 1. See Ans. 9. Appellant’s
contention that Kamp alone does not teach a microcontroller does not show
error in the Examiner’s combination of Dawson and Kamp.
Appellant contends the Examiner has not provided motivation to
modify Dawson. Reply Br. 6—7. We disagree for the reasons given by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 13—14. Cumulative to the
Examiner’s findings, we highlight the combination of Dawson and Kamp
represents the substitution of one known element for another known in the
field as discussed above.
Appellant contends Dawson does not teach the “capacitor prevents
change of an input at the microcontroller relating to the status of the tamper
switch during a loss of power event provided the capacitor has a charge and
the tamper switch is not physically activated” as recited in claim 8. Reply
Br. 8. Appellant’s contention does not address the combination of Dawson
5
Appeal 2016-007354
Application 13/040,201
and Kamp, which results in a memory storing the change of input during a
loss of power to a microcontroller. Ans. 10. The microcontroller would
receive the change of input from the memory only after power is restored as
taught by Kamp. || 71—73.
We sustain the rejections of claims 1—15 and 17—24 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—15 and 17—24 are 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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6