Hanchett Entry Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2021

2020005783 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021)

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.
15/097,571 04/13/2016 Brett L. Davis HE179.93369US2 1932
81360 7590 05/24/2021
Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP
1900 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester, NY 14604
EXAMINER
LUGO, CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2021 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):
ddanella@woodsoviatt.com
kmcguire@woodsoviatt.com
patents@woodsoviatt.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRETT L. DAVIS and RANDALL SHAFFER
____________

Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7–10, 21–26, 31–34, and 36.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Hanchett Entry Systems, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claims 3–6, 11–20, and 27–30 are cancelled. Appeal Br. (Claims App.).
Claim 35 is pending and not rejected, as discussed below.
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

2
CLAIMS
Independent claims 1, 21, and 33 are directed to an electromagnetic
door locking system, and independent claims 34–36 are directed to a method
of controlling the energizing of an electromagnet in an electromagnetic door
locking system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. An electromagnetic door locking system configured to
cooperate with a door movable in a door frame, said door
movable from a closed position to a non-closed position, the
system comprising:
a) an energizable electromagnet configured to be affixed
to one of said door or said door frame for electromagnetically
attracting an armature, said armature affixed to the other of said
door or said door frame, wherein when said door is in said
closed position and said electromagnet is energized, said
armature is attracted to said electromagnet thereby placing said
door in a locked mode;
b) a power control circuit configured to selectively
energize said electromagnet;
c) a first sensor configured to sense a first door position
when said door is in said closed position and a second door
position when said door is not in said closed position, wherein
said door is in said closed position when said armature is
engaged with said electromagnet, and wherein said door is not
in said closed position when said armature is not engaged with
said electromagnet; and
d) an authentication module connected to said power
control circuit, said authentication module configured to receive
access credentials and send an authentication signal to said
power control circuit,
wherein said electromagnet is energized by said power
control circuit when said first sensor senses said first door
position, wherein said electromagnet is de-energized for a first
predetermined period of time upon receipt of said
authentication signal, and wherein if said first sensor does not
sense said first door position after sensing said second door
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

3
position, said electromagnet remains de-energized irrespective
of said predetermined period of time.
Appeal Br. 29–30 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS3
1. Claims 2, 22–24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lai and Taylor (US 4,453,065, issued June 5, 1984).
Final Act. 5.
2. Claims 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lai and Frolov (US 5,065,136, issued Nov. 12, 1991).
Final Act. 7.
3. Claims 1, 7–10, 21, 25, 31, 32, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 6,609,738 B1, issued
Aug. 26, 2003) and Cook (US 4,871,204, issued Oct. 3, 1989).4 Final Act.
7.
4. Claims 2, 22–24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Roth, Cook, and Taylor. Final Act. 9.
5. Claims 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Roth, Cook, and Frolov. Final Act. 10.

3 The following rejections have been withdrawn: claims 2 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite, and claims 1, 7–10, 21, 25, 31, 32, 34,
and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai (US
2011/0018680 A1, published Jan. 27, 2011). Ans. 3; Final Act. 2, 3.
Consequently, claim 35 is not rejected under any ground of rejection.
4 The rejection heading indicates that claims 1, 7–10, 21, 25, 31, 32, 34, and
36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth in
view of Cook. Final Act. 7. However, it is clear from the heading as a
whole, as well as the body of the rejection, that the claims are actually
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Roth and Cook.
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1: Claims 2, 22–24, and 26 over Lai and Taylor
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claims 22–24 and 26 depend from
claim 21. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that Lai does not teach “an
electromagnetic door locking system comprising a first sensor configured to
sense a second door position when the door is not in the closed position,
wherein the door is not in the closed position when the armature is not
engaged with the electromagnet,” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 18–21
(emphasis omitted). In response, the Examiner has withdrawn the
anticipation rejection based on Lai without explanation. Ans. 3. As the
Examiner does not address Appellant’s argument that Lai fails to disclose a
first sensor configured to sense a second position as recited in claim 1, we
assume the Examiner found this contention to be persuasive, and,
consequently, withdrew the rejection of claim 1, and claims 7–10, 21, 25,
31, 32, 34, and 35, as anticipated by Lai.
In rejecting claims 2, 22–24, and 26 over the combination of Lai and
Taylor, however, the Examiner relies on Taylor as teaching a second sensor
that is separate from the first sensor to detect the position of the door, as
recited in claims 2 and 22. Final Act. 5; see Appeal Br. 30, 32 (Claims
App.). The Examiner does not rely on Taylor to cure the deficiency in the
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Lai. Claim 21 also recites the same
limitation that the first sensor is configured “to sense a second door position
when said door is not in said closed position . . . when said armature is not
engaged with said electromagnet,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 31
(Claims App.). Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the rejection of
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

5
claims 2, 22–24, and 26 cannot be sustained for the same reasons as the
rejection of claims 1 and 21 as anticipated by Lai. Reply Br. 3.

Rejection 2: Claims 33 and 36 over Lai and Frolov
The Examiner finds that Lai discloses all limitations of claims 33 and
36 except for a bond sensor. Final Act. 7. The Examiner relies on Frolov as
teaching a bond sensor (magnetic bond sensor 134), and concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Lai’s
system with a bond sensor, as taught by Frolov, “to ensure sufficient
magnetic holding force to ensure adequate locking of the door.” Id.
Appellant contends that Lai does not teach or suggest the limitations
of claims 33 and 36 for the same reason presented for the rejection of claim
1 as anticipated by Lai, and contends that Frolov fails to teach “the aspect”
that Lai lacks. Appeal Br. 23 (referencing id. at 18–19). As discussed
above, Appellant’s argument that Lai does not anticipate claim 1 is premised
on the position that Lai fails to disclose a sensor configured to sense a
condition when the door is not in the closed position, that is, when the
armature is not engaged with the electromagnet. Appeal Br. 19, 21.
However, this same limitation of claim 1 is not recited in claim 33 or 36.
Rather, claim 33 recites, inter alia:
a bond sensor configured to sense a first door condition when
said door is in said closed position . . . and a second door
condition when said door is in said closed position . . . wherein
said door is not in said closed position when said armature is
not engaged with said electromagnet.
Id. at 34 (Claims App.). Claim 36 similarly recites the step of:
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

6
providing a bond sensor configured to sense a first door
condition when said armature is in said closed position . . . a
second door condition when said door is in said closed position
. . . wherein said door is not in said closed position when said
armature is not engaged with said electromagnet.
Id. at 38 (Claims App.). Accordingly, both claims 33 and 36 recite that the
bond sensor is configured to sense first and second door conditions when the
door is in the closed position. Neither claim requires the bond sensor to be
configured to sense a door condition when the door is not in the closed
position (i.e., when the armature is not engaged with the electromagnet).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s Answer does
not mention whether the Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s arguments in
the Appeal Brief concerning the rejection of claims 33 and 36. Reply Br. 4.
However, Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief are not commensurate
in scope with the actual claim language. Unclaimed limitations cannot be
relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, as Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claims 33 and 36 as unpatentable over
Lai and Frolov.

Rejection 3: Claims 1, 7–10, 21, 25, 31, 32, 34, and 36 over Roth and Cook
The Examiner finds that Roth discloses an electromagnetic door
locking system comprising all limitations of claim 1 except an
“authorization module.” Final Act. 7–9. The Examiner finds that Roth
discloses that the system can be activated by a push bar or by any other
activation device, but fails to disclose the other devices. Id. at 8; see Roth,
col. 7, ll. 22–25.
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

7
The Examiner finds Cook teaches that it is well known in the art to
provide a similar electromagnetic system that includes an electromagnet
latch (electromagnetic lock 16, 18) including an authorization module
(coded input panel 26) that, upon an access code being inserted, de-energizes
the system and allows opening of the door. Final Act. 9; Ans. 6. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Roth’s
system to include an authorization module, as taught by Cook, to prevent
unauthorized access through the door. Final Act. 9.
Appellant contests the proposed combination. First, Appellant
contends that the Examiner has used a combination of two references to
support the anticipation rejection, and thus, the rejection should be reversed
for this reason. Appeal Br. 24; Reply Br. 5.
As noted above, it is clear that the Examiner inadvertently indicated
that the rejection is based on anticipation rather than obviousness. We agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not established with sufficient
evidence that Roth discloses each limitation of claim 1, either explicitly or
inherently. The fact that Cook discloses a coded input panel does not in any
way establish that this same element is necessarily disclosed by the broad
phrase “similar door activating device” described in Roth. See Roth, col. 7,
ll. 22–25, Fig. 1
Second, Appellant contends that the proposed combination of Roth
and Cook fails to teach or suggest an electromagnetic door locking system
comprising a first sensor configured to sense a second door position when
the door is not in the closed position, wherein the door is not in the closed
position when the armature is not engaged with the electromagnet, as recited
in claim 1. Appeal Br. 24. We agree.
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

8
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Roth’s sensor assembly
24 corresponds to the recited first sensor. Final Act. 8. Appellant
acknowledges that sensor assembly 24 operates to detect when the door is
fully closed, and also when the door is moved to the activation position
when someone attempts to exit the building. Appeal Br. 25 (citing Roth, col.
6, ll. 31–35, 46–50; col. 7, ll. 18–27; col. 8, ll. 22–27). Appellant notes,
however, that Figure 6 of Roth shows that in the door activation position,
armature 28 is still in contact with electromagnet 18. Id. As such, Appellant
contends that Roth’s sensor assembly 24 does not operate “to sense a second
door position when the armature is not engaged with the electromagnet,” as
required by claim 1. Id.
The Examiner responds that, in Roth:
When the door is not in the closed state, any position
from open to almost closed, there is a change in switches 62
and 64, which are part of the sensor 24, into “a door activation
position”. Because of the change, sensor 24 send[s] a signal to
the controller 80 to de-energize and allow the electromagnet to
non-magnetically engage the armature. So, when there is this
change, the sensor 24 is actually sensing a position of the door
away from the fully closed [position].
Ans. 5 (citing Roth, col. 8, ll. 23–51) (emphasis added).
But claim 1 requires that the armature is not engaged with the
electromagnet in the non-closed, second door position. Appellant maintains
that Figure 6 of Roth shows that, in the door “activation position,” armature
28 remains attracted and engaged with electromagnet 18. Reply Br. 8.
Further, Appellant contends that “Roth . . . describes what is represented in
FIG. 6 – ‘the present invention includes . . . an armature mount allowing
considerable outward movement of the door with respect to the frame while
the armature is held against the electromagnet.’” Id. (citing Roth, col. 3, ll.
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

9
9–15). Therefore, Appellant submits, any sensing performed in Roth by
switches 62, 64 (i.e., sensor 24) during the activation position does not occur
when door 10 is not in the “closed position” as defined in claim 1, because
armature 28 is still engaged with electromagnet 18. Id.
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 7–10 depending therefrom, over
Roth and Cook.
Appellant contends that claims 21, 25, 31, 32, 34, and 36 are likewise
not taught or suggested by Roth and Cook for the same reasons as for claim
1. Appeal Br. 26. Claims 21 and 34 include substantially the same
limitation for the first sensor as claim 1. As such, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 21 and 34, and claims 25, 31, and 32 depending from
claim 21, for the same reasons as for claim 1.
Claim 36 does not, however, recite that the bond sensor senses when
“said door is not in said closed position when said armature is not engaged
with said electromagnet,” as required by claims 1, 21, and 34. But, for
Rejection 5 discussed below, the Examiner acknowledges that “Roth, as
modified by Cook, fails to clearly disclose that the sensor is a bond sensor.”
Final Act. 10 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 36 over Roth and Cook for this reason.

Rejection 4: Claims 2, 22–24, and 26 over Roth, Cook, and Taylor
Appellant contends that Roth and Cook also fail to teach or suggest all
limitations recited in dependent claims 2, 22–24, and 26 based on the same
reasons stated for the rejection of claim 1 (and claim 21), and that Taylor
does not cure the deficiency in Roth and Cook. Appeal Br. 26.
Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

10
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner does not rely on Taylor to
cure the deficiency in the rejection of either claim 1 or claim 21 based on
Roth and Cook. See Final Act. 9–10. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 2, 22–24, and 26 as unpatentable over Roth, Cook, and Taylor for
the same reasons as for the rejection of claims 1 and 21 over Roth and Cook.

Rejection 5: Claims 33 and 36 over Roth, Cook, and Frolov
The Examiner finds that Roth and Cook disclose all limitations of
claims 33 and 36 except a bond sensor. Final Act. 10. The Examiner relies
on Frolov as teaching a bond sensor, and concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Roth as
modified by Cook with a bond sensor, as taught by Frolov, “to ensure
sufficient magnetic holding force to ensure adequate locking of the door.”
Id.
Appellant contends that Roth and Cook fail to teach or suggest all
limitations recited in claims 33 and 36 for the same reasons stated for the
rejection of claim 1, and that Frolov does not cure this deficiency. Appeal
Br. 27. However, neither claim 33 nor 36 requires the bond sensor to be
configured to sense a door condition when the door is not in the closed
position (i.e., when the armature is not engaged with the electromagnet), as
does claim 1. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning, and we sustain the rejection of claims 33 and 36 as
unpatentable over Roth, Cook, and Frolov.

Appeal 2020-005783
Application 15/097,571

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 22–24,
26
103 Lai, Taylor 2, 22–24,
26
33, 36 103 Lai, Frolov 33, 36
1, 7–10, 21,
25, 31, 32,
34, 36
103 Roth, Cook 1, 7–10, 21,
25, 31, 32,
34, 36
2, 22–24,
26
103 Roth, Cook, Taylor 2, 22–24,
26
33, 36 103 Roth, Cook, Frolov 33, 36
Overall
Outcome
33, 36 1, 2, 7–10,
21–26, 31,
32, 34

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv) (2019).

AFFIRMED IN PART