11041616 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

Ex Parte Piorkowski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

11041616 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MITCHELL J. PIORKOWSKI, PAUL W. BANDY DARRELL W. GASTON, JR., BINH C. TRUONG DWIGHT R. SCHAEFFER, SHANNON J. KUPFER, STEVEN D. FLICKINGER, JULIE M. SHINN, JAMES J. JOHNSON, STEVEN L. WEHR and MARK E. SMITH ____________ Appeal 2010-000592 Application 11/041,616 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM V. SAINDON and NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000592 Application 11/041,616 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Mitchell J. Piorkowski et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 20- 22. Claims 5, 10, 12 and 13-19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a system for sensing a decompression event which includes a control device that controls unlocking of a door between two compartments. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative: 1. A system for sensing a decompression event within an interior area of a pressurized structure, wherein the interior area is partitioned into at least two compartments by a wall having a door, wherein the door is movable between an open position and a closed position, and held in said closed position in either an unlocked or a locked condition, the system comprising: an electronic locking mechanism disposed adjacent said door for allowing said door to be maintained in said locked and unlocked conditions when positioned in said closed position, the electronic locking mechanism including: a control device within one of the two compartments; a controller responsive to said control device to maintain said door in said locked and unlocked positions; a pressure sensor for sensing a decompression event, the pressure sensor generating an output that electrically inhibits the electronic locking mechanism, substantially instantaneously, from holding the door in a closed position, thus Appeal 2010-000592 Application 11/041,616 3 allowing the door to open substantially simultaneously in response to said decompression event; a user keypad operably associated with said electronic locking mechanism for enabling a user in a first one of said compartments to request from an individual in a second one of said compartments that said door be unlocked, independently of operation of said pressure sensor; and said control device signals said controller to automatically unlock said door after a predetermined time delay period has expired, said predetermined time delay period including at least a first predetermined delay interval which commences when a user requests that said door be unlocked and the user enters a correct input to the user keypad after which said controller produces at least one short duration audible signal during said first predetermined delay interval that indicates to the individual that a request to unlock said door has been made, a second predetermined delay interval during which said controller produces a second audible signal and a continuous visual indicator to the individual that said controller will automatically unlock said door at an expiration of said predetermined time delay, and a third predetermined delay interval in which said controller produces a continuous audible signal and a continuously flashing visual indicator that is continuous throughout the third predetermined delay interval that indicates to the individual that said controller will automatically unlock said door at the expiration of said predetermined time delay period. Independent claim 7 requires that the predetermined time delay period have only first and second predetermined delay intervals, and that the controller produces first and second signals, without specifying whether the signals are audible, visual, continuous, not continuous, etc. Independent claim 21 requires that the predetermined time delay period have first, second and third predetermined delay intervals, and that the controller produces first Appeal 2010-000592 Application 11/041,616 4 and second signals, without specifying whether the signals are audible, visual, continuous, not continuous, etc., corresponding to the first and second delay intervals, and a third continuous signal corresponding to the third delay interval. THE REJECTION The Examiner has rejected claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 20-22 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 6,866,226 B2, issued Mar. 15, 2005) in view of Franki (BE 759,331, issued May 24, 1971)1 and Lavelle (US 5,479,151, issued Dec. 26, 1995). A rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, that appears in the Final Office Action dated November 12, 2008, is not included in the Examiner’s Answer. While the Answer does not specifically state that the rejection is withdrawn, it appears that this was the Examiner’s intent. ANALYSIS The Examiner relies on Franki for a teaching of a delay in opening a door between compartments of an aircraft after a request to open the door has been made, with an audible and/or sound signal being transmitted to the pilot, in the situation when the request is made by inputting a code indicative of a hijacking situation. Ans. 3-4. While the Examiner states that there are two predetermined delay intervals taught by Franki, the Examiner does not explain this statement further, and we do not understand Franki as teaching 1 This reference, a Belgian patent, was referred to during prosecution as “Belgium.” We refer to the reference as Franki herein, and specific references to page and line numbers are to the English-language translation of the patent of record in this application. Appeal 2010-000592 Application 11/041,616 5 such a feature. Ans. 4. The Examiner cites to Lavelle as teaching additional delay intervals within a predetermined time delay period, and concludes that it would have been obvious to include second and third predetermined time delays during which the controller of Pratt et al’s as modified by [Franki] warns the pilot that after a certain period, the door will unlock as taught by Lavelle et al to remind the pilot that safety procedures are in place and allow the pilot to lock or unlock the door when necessary. Ans. 5. This reason to combine the teachings of Lavelle with those of Pratt and Franki is lacking in rational underpinnings. In re Khan, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(obviousness rejections must be supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning), cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In Franki, the delay in opening the door is to allow the pilot a brief amount of time (“more or less five seconds”) to assess the situation, while, at the end of the delay, the system automatically opens the first door P1 after only those few seconds, “making the hijacker think that everything is going according to his wishes.” Franki, p. 5, l. 11, ll. 16-17. The system is designed to get the hijacker into the air-lock chamber S so that the hijacker can be neutralized by incapacitating gas, or simply by being confined in the air-lock chamber. Id. at ll. 17-19. The Examiner’s suggestion that the warning to the pilot should include plural delay intervals within the door opening delay period so as to give the pilot an opportunity to lock or unlock the door runs counter to the scheme the Franki system was designed to execute. Door P1 is intended to be opened when the delay period is complete. The pilot then has the opportunity to unlock or keep locked the Appeal 2010-000592 Application 11/041,616 6 second door P2, which is the door that allows access to the cockpit.2 Franki, p. 5, ll. 18-24. Accordingly, if additional delays were introduced in opening door P1 as the Examiner proposes, then a hijacker may not believe everything is going according to his wishes and may not enter the air-lock chamber. The Examiner has failed to explain why the additional delays of Lavelle would have been obvious notwithstanding. Accordingly, it appears that the Examiner’s combination of features and reason to combine those features is grounded in the use of impermissible hindsight reconstruction in view of Appellants’ disclosure. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of claims 1- 4, 6-9, 11 and 20-22 would have been obvious over Pratt in view of Franki and Lavelle. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is reversed. REVERSED mls 2 Franki does not discuss that the request for access through door P2 is accompanied by a door unlock time delay.