Ex Parte Shanmugasundaram et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201613184946 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/184,946 07/18/2011 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 08/30/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Abarna Shanmugasundaram 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. H0027183 4874/113773 1400 EXAMINER KING, RODNEY P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) TJJ\.HTED STi\.TES Pi\. TENT i\.ND TP"-'ADElVLA.RK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ABARNA SHANMUGASUNDARAM and SANTHANAKRISHNANPONNAMBALAM Appeal2014-008818 Application 13/184,946 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Abama Shamnugasundaram and Santhanakrishnan Ponnambalam (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1- 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-008818 Application 13/184,946 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: providing a plurality of access control devices, each controlling access by a user through an access point into a building; one of the plurality of access control devices receiving a user's identification code; the one of the plurality of access control devices receiving a user's destination location; the one of the plurality of access control devices uploading a current floor plan of a location that includes the user's destination location within the building; the one of the plurality of access control devices determining non-accessible areas in the location based on the user's identification code; the one of the plurality of access control devices computing a shortest path from a present location of the user to the user's destination location, wherein the shortest path circumvents the non-accessible areas; and the one of the plurality of access control devices altering and displaying the downloaded floor plan of the building to the user where the altered floor plan includes the shortest path and the obstacles within the building that correspond to areas of the floor plan that are not accessible to the user. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Mays Sidman US 2010/0023249 Al Jan. 28, 2010 US 2011/0138319 Al June 9, 2011 2 Appeal2014-008818 Application 13/184,946 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-20 1 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. 2 II. Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mays. III. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mays and Sidman. DISCUSSION Rejection I Appellants do not contest this rejection. See, generally, Appeal Br. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 as indefinite. Rejection II Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5-12, and 15-20 together. See Appeal Br. 7-10. We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims 2, 3, 5-12, and 15-20 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Mays discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except that Mays "does not specifically state that the calculated route includes the shortest path from the present location of the user to the user destination" and "does not disclose a plurality of access control devices." 1As all of the independent claims are rejected as indefinite, we understand all dependent claims also stand rejected as indefinite, based on their dependency from one of the independent claims. 2An amendment responding to this rejection was filed May 12, 2014. There is no indication in the file that the Examiner considered this amendment. Accordingly, the amendment is not entered. 3 Appeal2014-008818 Application 13/184,946 Final Act. 5, 6. We note that Mays explicitly discloses the use of Dijkstra methods. Mays i-f 60. The Examiner finds that "it is well known in the art for the Dijkstra methods that compute optimum routes, as taught by MAYS et al., to encompass shortest paths." Final Act. 6. Thus, we understand the Examiner to find that Mays implicitly discloses calculations that include the shortest path. Id. In addition, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious "to modify the system of Mays et al. to include a plurality of access control devices, since it has been held that duplicating the essential working parts of any invention, including the user device 116 of Mays et al., involves routine skill in the art." Id. Appellants argue that "the claimed invention is directed to routing system where a map may be generated automatically in conjunction with a grant of access into a secured area." Appeal Br. 7. Claim 1 is not so limited and does not require automatic generation of a map. See id.at 12. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Appellants further argue that "[t]he only obstacle disclosed by Mays et al. are the access control points." Appeal Br. 7. However, as the Examiner correctly finds, Mays describes non-accessible areas (i.e. obstacles) in paragraph 63. Final Act 5; see also Mays Fig. 5 (where the entire area beyond restriction 509 is non-accessible without authorization). Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. In addition, Appellants argues that: (1) "' [ t ]here must be some reason, suggestion or motivation found in the prior art whereby a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention would make the combination,"' (2) "the mere fact that the prior art references could be modified in the manner proposed by the Examiner would not have made the modification obvious 4 Appeal2014-008818 Application 13/184,946 unless there is some motivation or suggestion in the prior art to do so," (3) "[ w ]hen making an assessment of the obviousness of the claimed invention, the prior art, viewed as a whole, must 'suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination,"' ( 4) "[ w ]here no express teaching or suggestion is apparent from the references, the Examiner must establish, with evidence or reasoning, why one skilled in the art would have been led by the relevant teachings of the applied references to make the proposed combination," and (5) "there is no teaching or suggestion whatsoever in Mays et al. [of] the step[] of (or apparatus for) 'providing a plurality of access control devices."' Appeal Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 2. All of these arguments are foreclosed by KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which the Court rejected the rigid requirement of a teaching or suggestion or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. The Court noted that an obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418. Here, the Examiner articulates reasons for the proposed modifications as discussed supra. Appellants do not explain why the Examiner's reasoning is flawed. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Finally, Appellants contend that "the rejections are improper ... because Mays et al. is not directed to the problem solved by the claimed invention." Appeal Br. 10. Appellants' contention is not well taken because "[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee 5 Appeal2014-008818 Application 13/184,946 controls." KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Thus, again, Appellants do not apprise us of error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5-12, and 15-20, which fall therewith. Re} ection III Appellants do not address this rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13 and 14. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 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. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation