Ex Parte SINHA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

15160292 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/160,292 05/20/2016
26096 7590 05/29/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anshuman SINHA
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.
67 l 83-025PUS2;
56781US02
CONFIRMATION NO.
4864
EXAMINER
BARAKAT, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANSHUMAN SINHA
Appeal2018-00952
Application 15/160,292 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-26, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is UTC Fire & Security
Americas Corporation, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000952
Application 15/160,292
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's described and claimed invention relates generally to
access control devices. See Spec. ,r 11. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A security system, comprising:
a credential holder including a credential database that
contains at least three items of credential information, the at least
three items of credential information including
a specified secured area,
at least one secured access location, and
a specified adjacent area,
the credential information indicating the at least one
secured access location between the specified secured area and
the specified adjacent area where the credential information is
valid for authorized access;
an access control device at a selected position
corresponding to the secured access location, the access control
device being configured to receive the credential information
when the credential holder is near the access control device, the
access control device including a processor that has stored access
control information that contains at least three items of access
control information, the at least three items of access control
information including
the secured access location,
the specified secured area, and
the specified adjacent area,
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed March 2, 2017
("Final Act."), Appellant's Appeal Brief filed August 2, 2017 ("App. Br.")
and Reply Brief filed November 7, 2017 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed September 8, 2017, and the original Specification filed May
20, 2016 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-000952
Application 15/160,292
the processor autonomously determining that access to the
specified secured area will be granted when the received
credential information corresponds to the stored access control
information.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1--4, 12-15, and 23-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen
(US 2002/0180582 Al; published Dec. 5, 2002) ("Nielsen"), in view of
Tada et al. (JP 2004-084278 A; published Mar. 18, 2004) ("Tada").
Claims 5, 7-10, 16, and 18-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen, in view of Tada, and
further in view of Hyatt, Jr. (US 5,319,362; issued June 7, 1994) ("Hyatt").
Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Nielsen, in view of Tada, and further in view of Ocana
(US 2005/0174214 Al; published Aug. 11, 2005) ("Ocana").
Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Nielsen, in view of Tada, in view of Hyatt, and further in
view of Larson et al. (US 2009/0153291 Al; published June 18, 2009)
("Larson").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 4--7) and Reply Brief (see Reply
Br. 2--4), and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Unless otherwise
noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
3
Appeal2018-000952
Application 15/160,292
Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-
11 ), and in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-10), and we concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief.
Appellant argues the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest "a credential holder including a credential database that contains at
least three items of credential information, the at least three items of
credential information including a specified secured area, at least one
secured access location, and a specified adjacent area," as recited in
independent claims 1 and 12. See App. Br. 4--5. More specifically,
Appellant argues Nielsen's access code does not teach or suggest the
claimed "secured access location," as Nielsen only discloses storage and
transmittal of an access code by an electronic key device. See App. Br. 4;
see also Reply Br. 2. Thus, as argued by Appellant, even assuming
arguendo that it would have been obvious to modify Nielsen to include the
access control information as taught by Tada, Nielsen's credential holder
would still lack stored credential information that includes the claimed
"secured access location." See App. Br. 4--5. Appellant further argues Tada
merely discloses its security card includes identification information (such as
a card number), but does not teach or suggest that the security card includes
a credential database having credential information including a specified
secured area, a secured access location, and a specified adjacent area. See
App. Br. 5.
This argument is not persuasive of error. More specifically,
Appellant's argument that Nielsen's access code does not teach or suggest
4
Appeal2018-000952
Application 15/160,292
the claimed "secured access location," is incorrect because Nielsen explicitly
discloses that the access code includes a lock control unit ID which
identifies a lock control unit (i.e., the claimed "secured access location") for
which the access code is valid. See Ans. 5---6 (citing Nielsen Fig. 4); see also
Nielsen ,r 146.
Furthermore, Appellant's argument that Tada fails to teach or suggest
that its security card includes a credential database having credential
information including a specified secured area, a secured access location,
and a specified adjacent area, attacks Tada individually and does not address
the Examiner's combination of cited references. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based
on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981 ). More specifically, the Examiner found Nielsen, rather than Tada,
teaches a credential database having credential information including a
secured access location. See Final Act. 2 (citing Nielsen ,r,r 26-27; Fig. 2);
see also Ans. 5-7. The Examiner further found Tada teaches credential
information including a specified secured area and a specified adjacent area.
See Final Act. 3--4 (citing Tada ,r,r 53-55, 57-58; Fig. 2); see also Ans. 8.
Appellant's argument does not address the Examiner's finding regarding
Tada, and thus, does not address the Examiner's rationale supporting the
rejection.
Appellant further argues Nielsen teaches against modifying its
electronic key device to include a specified secured area and a specified
adjacent area. See App. Br. 5---6; see also Reply Br. 3. As argued by
Appellant, Nielsen teaches its access codes are preferably stored on a
5
Appeal2018-000952
Application 15/160,292
subscriber identity module ("SIM") card, which has limited storage capacity,
and, thus, Nielsen teaches conserving memory capacity on the SIM card by
only storing partial access codes on the SIM card. See App. Br. 5 (citing
Nielsen ,r,r 113, 149, 167, 168, 171); see also Reply Br. 3. In light of these
teachings, Appellant argues it would not have been obvious to modify
Nielsen to increase the amount of security information stored on the SIM
card, as this would consume more of the SIM card's limited storage
capacity. See App. Br. 5.
This argument is not persuasive for at least two reasons. First, we
agree with the Examiner that Nielsen teaches other types of storage means
used to store access codes, and does not explicitly teach that all types of
storage means will have the storage capacity issues described with respect to
the SIM card. See Ans. 9 ( citing Nielsen ,r 85); see also Nielsen ,r 43.
Second, even assuming arguendo that Nielsen teaches conserving memory
capacity on the SIM card by only storing partial access codes, this does not
mean that Nielsen necessarily teaches away from any modification that
increases the amount of credential information stored within the access code.
Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would still be motivated to consider a
modification to Nielsen's electronic key device that provides the benefit of
increased security (i.e., the Examiner's modification to modify Nielsen's
electronic key device to include access control information taught by Tada),
and to weigh the benefit of increased security against the drawback of
reduced storage capacity. See Winner Int 'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F .3d
1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The fact that the motivating benefit comes
at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a
basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.
6
Appeal2018-000952
Application 15/160,292
Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one
another.")
Appellant also argues the Examiner's stated reasoning for combining
Nielsen and Tada (i.e., to "increase security of the access control system by
requiring more than one piece of credential information for gaining access to
a secured location") is based only on Appellant's disclosure, as neither cited
reference discloses that including more than one piece of credential
information within a credential database on a credential holder would
increase security. See App. Br. 6 ( citing Final Act. 11 ); see also Reply Br. 3.
Thus, as argued by Appellant, the rejection improperly relies on hindsight
bias. See App. Br. 6.
This argument is not persuasive. "The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Examiner's combination of Nielsen and Tada is
no more than a combination of known elements (i.e., Nielsen's electronic
key device including storage means configured to store an access code and
Tada's access control information including a secured partition and an
adjacent partition). Further, Appellant has failed to persuasively establish
that such a combination does more than yield predictable results (i.e., a
requirement of more than one piece of credential information for gaining
access to a secured location). Thus, we conclude the rejection does not
improperly rely on hindsight bias.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 12
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner's
7
Appeal2018-000952
Application 15/160,292
rejection of claims 2-11 and 13-26, which depend from one of claims 1 and
12, and which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8