Ex Parte Spinelli

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 21, 2010

11360401 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte VITO A. SPINELLI
____________________

Appeal 2009-009004
Application 11/360,4011
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: April 22, 2010
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is The Stanley Works.
Appeal 2009-009004
Application 11/360,401

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 6-13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention relates to an automatic door assembly in which
a video camera assembly trained on the door provides video signals that are
used for both (a) determining when the automatic door should be opened and
(b) external transmission to a display providing a view of persons traveling
through the doorway, e.g. for monitoring and surveillance purposes (Spec.
2).
Claim 6 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
6. An automatic door assembly, comprising: a video device that is
capable of (a) receiving a video data signal comprising information
representative of images received by a video imaging device and (b)
processing the video data signal into a form suitable for displaying images
that are visually representative of the images received by the imaging
device;
a door panel constructed and arranged to be mounted for movement
between a closed position and an open position;
a door controlling system comprising:
(i) a video imaging device constructed and arranged to be
mounted in a viewing position wherein said imaging device
monitors a field of view that encompasses at least an approach
area located adjacent to the door panel, said video imaging
device being operable to monitor the field of view by receiving
images of the field of view and transmitting an internal video
data signal comprising information representative of said
images;
(ii) a detection system comprising a video signal processor
that communicates with said video imaging device, said video
signal processor being adapted to receive said internal video

2 Claims 1-5 stand allowed.
2
Appeal 2009-009004
Application 11/360,401

data signal from said imaging device and to process said
internal video data signal to determine whether a person or
object has entered said approach area, said detection system
being adapted to responsively transmit a door opening signal in
response to said processor thereof determining that a person or
object has entered said approach area; and
a door operator constructed and arranged to be connected to said door
panel and adapted to communicate with said detection system, said door
operator being constructed and arranged to move said door panel from said
closed position thereof to said open position thereof responsive to receiving
said door opening signal;
said door controlling system being adapted to transmit an external
video data signal comprising information representative of the images
received by said imaging device, thereby enabling the external video data
signal to be transmitted to the aforesaid video device so that the video device
can process the external video data signal into a form suitable for displaying
images that are visually representative of the images received by said video
imaging device including at least the approach area adjacent said door panel
said video imaging device comprising a video camera system that
transmits signals that are used for both (a) said internal video signal that
comprises information representative of said images transmitted to said
video signal processor for determining whether a person or object has
entered said approach area, to enable said detection system to transmit the
door opening signal, and (b) said external video data signal to be transmitted
to said video device that processes the external video data signal into a form
suitable for displaying said images that are visually representative of the
images received by said video camera system.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Farrar US 4,832,158 May 23, 1989
Duhame US 5,541,585 Jul. 30, 1996
Nitta US 6,345,105 B1 Feb. 5, 2002
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nitta in view of Duhame.
3
Appeal 2009-009004
Application 11/360,401

Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nitta in view of Duhame and Farrar.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed September 23, 2009), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
January 23, 3009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November
26, 2008) for their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner did not provide legally sufficient
rationale to combine the references (App. Br. 7). According to the Examiner,
Duhame teaches that the problem with prior art devices is excessive wait
time for a door to open. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Nitta to include external video transmission as disclosed
in Duhame in order to reduce wait time (Ans. 4, 7). Appellant contends,
however, that the device of Nitta contains no such problem, because Nitta is
directed to opening a door for anyone who presents him- or herself at a
doorway, rather than Duhame’s controlled access (App. Br. 7). Further,
Appellant contends, the passive IR detector subsystem introduced by
Duhame to solve the problem of excessive waiting time is not sought by the
Examiner to be incorporated into Nitta (App. Br. 8).3
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Would the person of ordinary skill in the art have been motivated to
combine Nitta with Duhame to arrive at the claimed invention?

3 Appellant’s arguments present additional issues that we do not reach,
because this issue is considered dispositive of the appeal.
4
Appeal 2009-009004
Application 11/360,401

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, he has invented an automatic door
assembly including a video camera assembly whose signals are used for both
(a) determining when the automatic door should be opened and (b) external
transmission to a display providing a view of persons traveling through the
doorway, e.g., for monitoring and surveillance purposes (Spec. 2).
Nitta
2. Nitta teaches an automatic door system that opens a door upon
a judgment that a passerby faces toward the door (Abstract).
Duhame
3. Duhame teaches providing authorized users with a portable RF
transceiver 18 that communicates with fixed transceiver 16 located in a door
frame to allow authorized users rapid access (Duhame col. 4, l. 20 and col. 4,
l. 38 – col. 5, l. 12)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
5
Appeal 2009-009004
Application 11/360,401

there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-
420.
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 6, 7, 9, 11-13
The Examiner finds that Nitta teaches all of the limitations of the
claimed invention, except for transmitting an external video signal (Ans. 4).
The Examiner then finds that Duhame teaches that prior art entry systems
require users to remain outside a door for an extended period of time, and
that Duhame teaches “transmit[ing] an external video signal … in a form
suitable for displaying images at a remote location” (Ans. 4). The Examiner
then concludes that it would have been obvious to include Duhame’s
transmission of an external video signal within the system of Nitta, in order
to obtain an apparatus that reduces the outside wait time for a plurality of
different users (Ans. 4).
Appellant argues that the person having ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to combine Nitta with Duhame in the manner
suggested by the Examiner (App. Br. 7). First, Appellant argues, Nitta is
already directed to solving the problem of wait time for users waiting
outside a door, without any further modification in view of Duhame, because
Nitta teaches opening its door as soon as any person presents himself in front
of the door with the appropriate facing (App. Br. 7). Second, Duhame seeks
to solve the problem of excessive wait time by providing authorized users
with a portable RF transceiver that communicates with fixed transceiver 16
located in a door frame to allow authorized users rapid access (FF 3); the
Examiner, however, does not seek to add the RF transceiver of Duhame to
6
Appeal 2009-009004
Application 11/360,401

the invention of Nitta, but rather proposes to add Duhame’s external video
transmission (App. Br. 8).
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. The
teaching relied upon by the Examiner to establish the problem to be solved –
excessive wait time outside a closed door – appears in the secondary
reference (Duhame) rather than the reference sought to be modified (Nitta).
Next, the Examiner does not propose the addition to Nitta the one feature
Duhame discloses as solving the stated problem of the prior art, i.e., having
authorized users carry portable transceivers so that they may be
authenticated, and the door opened, quickly. The Examiner never explains
why adding external video transmission to the system of Nitta would reduce
a user’s wait time outside a door. We agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has failed to establish why the person having ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to combine Nitta with Duhame to obtain the
instant invention.
Because we find error in the Examiner’s rationale for combining Nitta
with Duhame, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of independent claim 6,
nor that of claims 7, 9, and 11-13 dependent therefrom.
CLAIMS 8 AND 10
As noted supra, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 6 as
being obvious over Nitta in view of Duhame. We have reviewed Farrar, and
find that it does not remedy the noted deficiencies of the rejection of claim 6.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 and 10
under § 103 as unpatentable over Nitta in view of Duhame and Farrar, for
the same reasons expressed with respect to claim 6, supra.

7
Appeal 2009-009004
Application 11/360,401

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated
to combine Nitta with Duhame to arrive at the claimed invention.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-13 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP
P.O. BOX 10500
MCLEAN, VA 22102
8