Ex Parte Nassimi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2012

10995975 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/995,975 11/23/2004 Shary Nassimi 5569-90748-US 5682
22242 7590 06/25/2012
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
KAPLAN, HAL IRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SHARY NASSIMI
________________

Appeal 2010-000689
Application 10/995,975
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC. S. FRAHM, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000689
Application 10/995,975

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 4 and 9 – 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to devices which are operated in response to
keypads, pushbuttons or other human interface input which sometimes must
be actuated in areas which are unlit or where visibility is limited. See Spec.
¶ [0001]. An object of the invention is to provide lighting of a keypad or
similar device in response to physical presence of a person in the area of the
device under low light conditions, and which turns off the illumination
automatically when use of the device is finished. See Spec. ¶ [0005].
Alternatively, entry of a proper code may serve to turn off the illumination
manually. See Spec. ¶¶ [0015] and [0017].
Exemplary Claim
1. A human interface input system with means facilitating
operation under conditions of low ambient light, said system
comprising:
a. a plurality of manually operable keys;
b. a light source actuable to illuminate said keys;
c. a sensor operable to generate an electrical signal in
response to at least one of physical presence and motion of an
object in the immediate vicinity of said sensor;
d. means for actuating said light source in response to
generation of said electrical signal; and
e. coding means establishing a predetermined sequence
of operation of said keys, wherein illumination by said light
Appeal 2010-000689
Application 10/995,975

3
source is deactivated as soon as operation of said keys in said
predetermined sequence is complete.
(Emphasis added).
Evidence and Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 4, 9 – 12, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Behlke (US 6,107,930) and Baggarly
(US 5,917,411).1 See Ans. 3 – 4.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Behlke and
Baggarly teaches or suggests “coding means establishing a predetermined
sequence of operation of said keys, wherein illumination by said light source
is deactivated as soon as operation of said keys in said predetermined
sequence is complete,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Behlke to teach or suggest a keypad for a
security system that is illuminated by at least one of physical presence and
motion of an object in the immediate vicinity of a sensor. See Ans. 3. The
Examiner relies on Baggarly to teach or suggest deactivation of a light
source when operation of keys in a predetermined sequence is complete. See
Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine
Behlke and Baggarly so that completing the sequence of keys, as taught by

1 The Examiner also rejects claims 13 – 20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Behlke, Baggarly, and one or more other
references. See Ans. 5 – 6. However, Appellant does not argue these other
claims separately or with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 16.
Appeal 2010-000689
Application 10/995,975

4
Baggarly, deactivates the illumination source taught by Behlke, so as to save
power when illumination is not desired. Id.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred, arguing that the light
source in Baggarly is merely a light emitting diode (LED) “used to signal
that mail has been deposited in the mailbox,” not a source of keypad
illumination. App. Br. 13. The Examiner readily acknowledges that
Baggarly’s LED is not used to illuminate a keypad. See Ans. 7. However,
the Examiner properly relies on Baggarly for the narrow teaching of
“deactivating a light source as soon as keys of a keypad are operated in a
predetermined sequence.” Ans. 9. Appellant’s challenge to Baggarly
individually is not convincing of error in the Examiner’s rejection, which is
based on the combination of Behlke and Baggarly.
Appellant also states that Behlke has a timing feature in which keypad
illumination is extinguished after a predetermined interval ranging from a
few seconds to several minutes. See App. Br. 12 – 13 (citing Behlke col. 4,
ll. 35 – 45). Appellant argues that because of this timing feature, an artisan
of ordinary skill would not modify Behlke to add an additional way to
extinguish keypad illumination. See App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5.
However, Behlke’s timing feature, an example of automatic keypad
illumination deactivation, does not preclude additional features, such as
manual keypad illumination deactivation. Therefore, we find no error in the
Examiner’s reason, which has a rational underpinning, supporting the
conclusion that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
modify Behlke using the teachings and suggestions of Baggarly to allow for
deactivation of the keypad light source upon entry of a predetermined
sequence. See Ans. 4 and 7.
Appeal 2010-000689
Application 10/995,975

5
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
dependent claims 2 – 4 and 9 – 23, which are not argued separately. See
App. Br. 12 – 16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 4 and 9 – 23 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj