Ex Parte Queenan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2015

10771480 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2015)

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.
10/771,480 02/03/2004 Joseph A. Queenan ARD-55815 2847
23642 7590 05/14/2015
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (SB)
100 North Michigan
600 1st Source Bank Center
South Bend, IN 46601
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NAM V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH A. QUEENAN
____________

Appeal 2013-003285
Application 10/771,480
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–27, 29–33, 59–84, 86–90, and 131–136.
1
We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1
Claims 28, 85, 116–130, and 137 have been canceled; claims 34–58 and
91–115 have been withdrawn. Appeal Br. 1–2.
Appeal 2013-003285
Application 10/771,480

2
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
Appellant’s invention is directed to a latch mechanism or tag that can
track the opening and closing of a bag/container and accumulate related
data. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1 and 131 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for establishing profile data that is
associated with a latch mechanism comprising:
obtaining personal data associated with a user;
obtaining an identifier that identifies a latch mechanism
that is associated with a movable object;
associating the personal data with the identifier;
assigning a risk level for the latch mechanism as a
function of the personal data; and
storing the personal data and the identifier in the latch
mechanism.
131. A method for establishing profile data that is
associated with a latch mechanism comprising:
obtaining personal data associated with a user;
obtaining an identifier that identifies a latch mechanism
that is associated with a movable object;
associating the personal data with the identifier;
obtaining the current location of the latch mechanism;
and
outputting the location to the person whose data is
associated with the latch mechanism.

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–9, 12–16, 24, 30–33, 59–66, 69–73, 81, 87–90, and 134
stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
Appeal 2013-003285
Application 10/771,480

3
combination of Leon (US 6,097,306; issued Aug. 1, 2000) and Kulack (US
7,134,015 B2; issued Nov. 7, 2006). Final Act. 8–12.
Claims 10 and 67 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Leon, Kulack, and Thorne (US
6,747,558 B1; issued June 8, 2004). Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 11 and 68 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Leon, Kulack, and Maloney (US
6,424,260 B2; issued July 23, 2002). Final Act. 13–14.
Claims 17–23 and 74–80 stand rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Leon, Kulack, and Fisher (US
7,009,489 B2; issued Mar. 7, 2006). Final Act. 14–15.
Claims 25–27, 82–84, and 131–133 stand rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Leon,
Kulack, and Barrett (US 5,046,084; issued Sept. 3, 1991). Final Act. 15–16.
Claims 29 and 86 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Leon, Kulack, and Rumble (US
7,219,235 B2; issued May 15, 2007). Final Act. 16–17.
Claims 135 and 136 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Leon, Kulack, and Kniffin (US
6,072,402; issued June 6, 2000). Final Act. 17–18.
ISSUES
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following dispositive
issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Leon
and Kulack teach or suggest obtaining personal data associated with a
Appeal 2013-003285
Application 10/771,480

4
user and associating the personal data with the identifier (hereinafter
the “personal data” limitations), as recited in claim 1?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Leon,
Kulack, and Barrett teach or suggest obtaining the current location of
the latch mechanism and outputting the location to the person whose
data is associated with the latch mechanism, as recited in claim 131?
c) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Leon,
Kulack, and Rumble teach or suggest electronically transferring
payment for the user fee, as recited in claim 29?
d) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Leon,
Kulack, and Kniffin teach or suggest obtaining a geographic location
at which the object was once located and associating a risk level with
the movable object as a function of the geographic location
(hereinafter the “geographic location” limitations), as recited in claim
136?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellant’s contentions.
Issue A: Claims 1–24, 30–33, 59–81, 87–90, and 134
Appellant contends “[n]either Kulack et al’s disclosure with respect to
password input nor the disclosure with respect to the location of the
indicator device” teaches the “personal data” limitations of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 6–8. The Examiner finds these limitations are taught by Leon. Ans. 4–
5. The Examiner relies on Kulack to teach a different limitation of claim 1
Appeal 2013-003285
Application 10/771,480

5
(“assigning a risk level for the latch mechanism”). Final Act. 9; see also
Ans. 5–6.
The Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that Leon teaches or
suggests the “personal data” limitations. Final Act. 8; Ans. 4–5. Therefore,
Appellant’s contentions regarding a different reference (Kulack) have not
persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combined teachings of Leon
and Kulack teach or suggest the “personal data” limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of: (1) claim 1; (2)
independent claims 59 and 134, for which Appellant relies on the same
arguments made for claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8); and (3) their dependent claims
2–9, 12–16, 24, 30–33, 60–66, 69–73, 81, and 87–90, for which Appellant
did not present separate arguments for patentability (Appeal Br. 8).
With respect to dependent claims 10, 11, 17–23, 67, 68, and 74–80,
Appellant merely contends the additional references used in the rejections of
these claims (Thorne, Maloney, Fisher) do not make up for the purported
deficiencies Appellant argues are present in the rejection of independent
claims 1, 59, and 34. Appeal Br. 8–9. As Appellant does not otherwise
separately argue these claims with particularity, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of these claims for the reasons discussed supra.
Issue B: Claims 25–27, 82–84, and 131–133
Claim 131 recites “obtaining the current location of the latch
mechanism” and “outputting the location to the person whose data is
associated with the latch mechanism.” The Examiner finds Barrett teaches
obtaining location data of lock mechanism 12 and outputting the location
data to the computer (18) or remote location in order to track the lock
mechanism. Ans. 9 (citing Barrett 14:27–46; 15:10–23). The Examiner
Appeal 2013-003285
Application 10/771,480

6
states “the current location of the latch mechanism is recorded when access
[sic] by the user.” Ans. 9. Appellant contends claim 131 requires outputting
the current location of the latch mechanism and this recitation is not taught
by Barrett. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3–4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established Barrett
teaches or suggests obtaining the current location of the latch mechanism
and outputting the location. The cited portions of Barrett teach entries stored
in a lockbox access log can be transmitted to the memory of a requesting key
when a READ function is selected and the information from the key can be
later relayed to a computer through a stand. Barrett 14:27–33, 15:19–21; see
also Barrett 8:56–58. Barrett further teaches the access log “only logs
OPEN, SBA [‘shown by arrangement’], SHACKLE RELEASE,
SIGNATURE and FILE MARK functions . . . [and] a variety of ancillary
data, such as the date and time of the operation and the identity of the key
requesting the operation.” Barrett 22:66–23:11. The Examiner has not
established there is any teaching or suggestion in Barrett that location
information of the latch mechanism is stored in the access log or transmitted
to the key. Nor has the Examiner found the additional references of record
(Leon, Kulack) remedy this deficiency.
Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner failed to establish that the
combined teachings of Leon, Kulack, and Barrett teach or suggest obtaining
the current location of the latch mechanism and outputting the location of to
the person whose data is associated with the latch mechanism. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of: (1) claim 131; (2)
claims 25 and 82, which recite limitations substantially similar to that
Appeal 2013-003285
Application 10/771,480

7
discussed with reference to claim 131; and (3) claims 26, 27, 83, 84, 132,
and 133, which depend from one of claims 25, 82, and 131.
Issue C: Claims 29 and 86
Appellant contends the combination of Leon, Kulack, and Rumble
does not teach or suggest electronically transferring payment for the user fee
as recited in claim 29. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner finds Rumble
teaches generating a user fee for the latch mechanism and electronically
transferring payment for the user fee. Ans. 9–10. The cited portions of
Rumble teach the lock box issuing authority (e.g., e-commerce provider) can
prevent use of a lock box if the homeowner refuses to pay the on-going
rental. Rumble 10:55–59; see also Rumble 4:30–35 (authority can be e-
commerce authority with lock boxes located at customer residences). We
agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would understand Rumble to teach or suggest that the user
fee for the lock box could be transferred electronically to the e-commerce
provider. When there is a finite or limited number of payment options,
either electronic or non-electronic payment, ordinary skilled artisans would
have had good reason to pursue all the payment options within their
technical grasp. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421
(2007). Therefore, Appellant has failed to persuade us the Examiner erred in
finding the combined teachings of Leon, Kulack, and Rumble teach or
suggest electronically transferring payment for the user fee. Accordingly,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 29 and claim 86, for
which Appellant relies on the same arguments made for claim 29 (Appeal
Br. 9).
Appeal 2013-003285
Application 10/771,480

8
Issue D: Claims 135 and 136
The Examiner finds the combined teachings of Leon, Kulack, and
Kniffin teach or suggest the “geographic location” limitations of claim 136.
Ans. 11. In particular, the Examiner finds Kniffin teaches a location of a
latch mechanism is used to allow access to the truck’s contents. Ans. 10–11
(citing Kniffin 8:33–38). We have reviewed the cited portions of Kniffin
and agree with Appellant’s contention that these sections teaches
determining whether access should be provided to the truck based on the
current location at which the access is attempted, and not as a function of a
geographical location at which the object (truck) was once located (Appeal
Br. 11). Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner failed to establish that
the combined teachings of Leon, Kulack, and Kniffin teach or suggest the
“geographic location” limitations of claim 136. Accordingly will not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of: (1) claim 136; and (2) claim 135, which
contains substantially similar recitations.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–24, 29–33, 59–81, 86–90, and
134 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 25–27, 82–84, 131–133, 135, and
136 are reversed.
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-IN-PART
tj