Ex Parte Myers et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2019

14283127 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/283,127 05/20/2014
23460 7590 05/30/2019
LEYDIG VOIT & MA YER, LTD
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON A VENUE
CHICAGO, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary L. Myers
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.
716822 7532
EXAMINER
JIANG, YONG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2019 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY L. MYERS, ASH OK HIRPARA,
JOHN D. VELERIS, and MICHAEL AARON COHEN
Appeal2017-010626
Application 14/283,127
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-8. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We heard the appeal on May 14, 2019.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Redmann (US 2012/0221473 Al; Aug. 30, 2012) and Lempio (US
2003/0207683 Al; Nov. 6, 2003). Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Redmann, Lempio, and Sanjeev (US 2003/0028625 Al; Feb. 6, 2003). Final
Act. 5-6.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Delphian Systems, LLC.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010626
Application 14/283,127
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Redmann,
Lempio, and Litmanen (US 2007/0129030 Al; June 7, 2007). Final Act. 6.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Redmann,
Lempio, Sanjeev, and Fortson (US 2008/0177436 Al; July 24, 2008). Final
Act. 7.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Redmann,
Lempio, and Jessup (US 4,217,616; Aug. 12, 1980). Final Act. 7-8.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "electronically activated access
control via mobile wireless communication devices with programmed
computer application program execution capabilities." Spec. ,-J 3. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed limitation
emphasized:
1. An access control system for controlling physical
access via communications with a wireless communication
device, the access control system comprising:
an electro-mechanical access control security device; and
a receiving unit for controlling actuation of the electro-
mechanical access control security device,
wherein the receiving unit is adapted to be paired with a
host on the wireless communication device to communicate via
Bluetooth communications;
wherein the receiving unit is adapted for receiving, after
pairing with the host, user commands from the paired host for
2
Appeal2017-010626
Application 14/283,127
the electro-mechanical access control security device via the
Bluetooth communications;
wherein the receiving unit is adapted to selectively
operate in one of a plurality of Bluetooth communications
energy consumption modes including:
a low energy consumption mode, and
a high energy consumption mode; and
wherein the system selects the high energy consumption
mode based upon a current proximity status of the wireless
communications device with respect to the access control
system.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 AND 8 OVER REDMANN AND
LEMPIO
Contentions
The Examiner finds Redmann and Lempio teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Lempio teaches the
key disputed limitation. Final Act. 4 ( citing Lempio ,-J 35). The Examiner
explains "Lempio teaches Bluetooth communications devices are adapted to
3
Appeal2017-010626
Application 14/283,127
selectively operate in a low energy consumption mode in close range and a
high energy consumption mode in longer range." Final Act. 4 (citing Lempio
,i 35). The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was filed to modify the system of
Redmann to include . . . wherein the system selects the high
energy consumption mode based upon a current proximity
status of the wireless communications device with respect to the
access control system in order to reduce power consumption of
the receiving unit by selecting the high energy consumption
mode only when the wireless communication device is out of
range of the low energy consumption mode.
Final Act. 4-5.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "Lempio does not suggest changing between two supported RF
types based upon 'current proximity status' of the access point 400 and a
mobile station 300." App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3-5.
11.
The access control systems described in Redmann do not
present circumstances that would provide any reason to operate
in the high energy mode (with a range of 100 meters)-as
opposed to the low energy mode (with a range of 10 meters).
Rather, it seems that the low-energy Bluetooth mode would
suffice for Redmann' s systems. Thus, there is no need/reason to
adapt Redmann's systems to selectively operate (based upon
current proximity status) in the high/low energy consumption
mode of Bluetooth communications.
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5-6.
In response, the Examiner explains:
[I]t is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that Lempio
teaches switching between the two power consumption modes
based on the distance between the receiving unit and the
wireless communications device (via use low power mode
4
Appeal2017-010626
Application 14/283,127
when the distance is lower than 10 meters, and switch to high
power mode when the distance is greater than 10 meters as low
power mode communications cannot be established at the
longer distance).
Ans. 2-3.
The Examiner further explains:
The teachings of Lempio promotes [sic] conservation of energy
by utilizing a low power mode at a close range and utilizing a
high power mode when communication cannot be established at
a long range using the low power mode; therefore, the reason to
modify Redmann in view of Lempio is clearly to reduce power
consumption when possible.
Ans. 4.
Our Review
Lempio discloses:
Access point 400 communicates with mobile stations 300
via short range wireless RF transceivers 420, such as WLAN or
Bluetooth, and antenna 425. If Bluetooth technology is
employed, the operating range of the access point 400, and thus,
the distance between an access point 400 and a mobile station
300, using current technology is in the range of up to 10 meters
for a low power mode and 100 meters for a high power mode.
Access point 400 also may be connected to external networks
or devices 150 located on the wiring infrastructure of a LAN
(not shown) via external connection 415.
Lempio ,-J 3 5.
Lempio does not disclose switching between the low power mode and
the high power mode based on the distance between the access point 400 and
the mobile station 300. See Lempio ,-J 35. At best, Lempio discloses
existence of the low power mode, and existence of the high power mode.
Lempio ,-J 35. Lempio at paragraph 35 does not discuss changing between
5
Appeal2017-010626
Application 14/283,127
the different modes, let alone changing between the different modes based
on a proximity status as recited in the key disputed limitation of claim 1:
"wherein the system selects the high energy consumption mode based upon
a current proximity status of the wireless communications device with
respect to the access control system."
In short, we agree with Appellants' argument (i) that the Examiner
erred in finding Lempio teaches the key disputed limitation because the
Examiner's findings and reasons are not supported by the disclosures in
Lempio at paragraph 3 5.
Further, we agree with Appellants' argument (ii). Redmann discloses
activating an electric vehicle charger in response to accepting a certificate at
an access device from a mobile terminal via Bluetooth. Redmann, Abstract,
Figs. 1, 3. Redmann also discloses an embodiment where a hotel room lock
is activated. Redmann, Figs. 4, 5. We do not see a reason for Redmann to
selectively operate in a high energy mode. Lempio describes the low power
mode as having a 10 meter range and the high power mode as having a 100
meter range. On the record before us, we do not see a reason for any of the
disclosed embodiments of Redmann to selectively operate in the high energy
mode because the Examiner has not explained why a 100 meter range would
be beneficial in any of the embodiments disclosed in Redmann.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8, which depends from
claim 1.
6
Appeal2017-010626
Application 14/283,127
THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not find that any
of the additional references cure the deficiencies of Redmann and Lempio
discussed above when addressing claim 1. See Final Act. 5-8.
We, therefore, do not sustain:
the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5 as obvious over
Redmann, Lempio, and Sanjeev;
the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 as obvious over Redmann,
Lempio, and Litmanen;
the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 as obvious over Redmann,
Lempio, Sanjeev, and Fortson; or
the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 as obvious over Redmann,
Lempio, and Jessup.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.
REVERSED
7