RPH Engineering

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 24, 2022

2021001275 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2022)

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. 14/821,726 08/08/2015 Ryan P. Hyde 11144.203 2092 128660 7590 02/24/2022 Joseph Shapiro Strong & Hanni 102 South 200 East, Suite 800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 EXAMINER TERRELL, EMILY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/24/2022 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): cbecerra@strongandhanni.com jshapiro@strongandhanni.com patentadmin@strongandhanni.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RYAN P. HYDE, JACOB S. MORRISE, JOHN ROBERT SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL R. COLTON, and NEAL TAYLOR TEW _____________ Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 6 and 39. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is RPH Engineering, LLC. See Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 Introduction Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to an electronic locking system. See Spec. ¶ 2. Independent Claims 6 and 39 6. A padlock comprising: a housing; a locking mechanism to lock the lock; and a lock control system including a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader; wherein: the padlock includes a shackle: the housing includes a dowel pin channel shaped to accommodate a dowel pin secured around a bottom of the shackle; and the dowel pin channel extends vertically with a horizontal extension at the top of the dowel pin channel such that the shackle can move vertically freely but cannot swivel until the shackle is fully extended out of the housing. 39. A padlock comprising: a housing; a locking mechanism to lock the lock; a lock control system including a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader; and a hardware port for data communication, battery charging, and powering the padlock. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). 2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed Jan. 10, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 10, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Sept. 24, 2020. (“Ans.”). Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 3 Rejections and References Claims 6 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Kahwati (US 2014/0360232 A1, Dec. 11, 2014) and further in view of Spunt (US 8,875,550 B1, Nov. 4, 2014). Final Act. 3. Claims 6 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beatty (US 2015/0292244 A1, Oct. 15, 2015) and further in view of Spunt. Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 turns on whether the combinations of (1) Al-Kahwati and Spunt, or (2) Beatty and Spunt teach the claim limitations a) a “dowel pin,” and b) a “dowel pin channel.” Appeal Br. 3-6, 7-12 (hereinafter the pin and the channel limitations). Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 turns on whether the combinations of (1) Al-Kahwati and Spunt, or (2) Beatty and Spunt teach the claim limitations “a hardware port for data communication, battery charging, and powering the padlock.” Appeal Br. 6, 7, 12 (hereinafter the port limitation). We adopt the findings of facts made by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the decision reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer for the specific reasons discussed below. We note that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, in the Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 4 absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. We highlight the following for emphasis. Rejection of claim 6 over Al-Kahwati and Spunt Appellant contends “Al-Kahwati makes no disclosure of a dowel pin secured to the bottom of a shackle, or a dowel pin channel for vertical travel of the dowel pin, or of a horizontal extension at the top of the dowel pin channel.” Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Al-Kahwati and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the reference for disclosing the disputed “pin” and “channel” limitations (Ans. 3-5). In particular, the Examiner finds Al-Kahwati teaches: To lock the device, the solenoid would push or pull a locking pin (904) into a notch (902a). A spring (914) would then return the locking pins to their original position, once the solenoid is not energized anymore. The entire mechanism is referred to as (921), the locked state as (922), and the unlocked state as (923). Ans. 3 (citing Al-Kahwati, Fig. 9(b), ¶ 68). In other words, the Examiner maps “the locking pin” and the “notch” of Al-Kahwati to respectively suggest the pin and the channel limitations. As an initial matter of claim construction, we turn to the Specification for context, and find no explicit definition for the claim terms “pin” and “channel,” Claim 6. Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 5 Paragraph 74 of the Specification discloses: Figure 8 shows an inside of an exemplary padlock having a dowel pin and a dowel pin channel. The shackle 620 is inserted into the housing 610 in a locked state and may be extended out of the housing 610 in an unlocked state. A dowel pin 810 is installed near the bottom of the shackle 620. The padlock 600 includes a dowel pin channel 820 extended vertically with a horizontal extension at the top of the dowel pin channel 820. The dowel pin 810 is accommodated in the dowel pin channel 820 such that the shackle 620 with the dowel pin 810 may move freely up and down but may not swivel until the shackle 620 is fully extended upward out of the housing 610. The shackle 620 may swivel freely after the shackle 620 is fully extended upward from the padlock 600. Given the absence of a limiting definition in the claim or Specification regarding the disputed pin and channel limitations, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reading is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.5 Based on our review of Al-Kahwati and consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 3-5), we interpret the disputed pin and channel limitations using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure - to be respectively met by Al-Kahwati’s locking pin 904 and notch 902(a) as shown in Figure 9(b) and described at paragraph 68. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 5 We emphasize that, because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 6 Rejection of claim 6 over Beatty and Spunt Appellant contends: Beatty does not disclose a dowel pin secured around the bottom of the shackle. Beatty does not disclose a dowel pin channel for vertical travel of a dowel pin. Neither does Beatty disclose a horizontal extension to the dowel pin channel. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Beatty and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the reference for disclosing the disputed “pin” and “channel” limitations (Ans. 6-8). In particular, the Examiner finds Beatty teaches: Beatty teaches the channel extends vertically (Grooves 117) with a horizontal extension at the top of the dowel pin channel (Ball Bearings 115) such that the shackle can move vertically freely but cannot swivel until the shackle is fully extended out of the housing[.] . . . . See Figures 1, 2, above for pins and channel, as the pins are retracted from and lengthened into the vertical with a horizontal extension at the top of the pin channel, relative to the height direction of the shackle, as pictured. Notches for the pin channel are shown in figure 3[.] Ans. 6-7 (citing Beatty, Figs. 1-3, ¶¶ 31-32). As discussed above with respect to the “Rejection of claim 6 over Al-Kahwati and Spunt,” given the absence of a limiting definition in the claim or Specification regarding the disputed pin and channel limitations, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reading is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Based on our review of Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 7 Beatty and consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 6-8), we interpret the disputed pin and channel limitations using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure - to be respectively met by Beatty’s Ball Bearings 115 and Grooves 117 as shown in Figures 1-3 and described at paragraphs 31 and 32. See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054. Rejection of claim 39 over Al-Kahwati and Spunt Appellant contends: Al-Kahwati discloses only that the same port may be used for charging and powering: “The energy storage elements (300) can be recharged from the serial connection (304), or completely sourced from it.[”] Al-Kahwati at [0050]. Al-Kahwati makes no disclose that the same hardware could also be used for communication. Appeal Br. 6-7. The Examiner responds that Al-Kahwati explicitly teaches an access port for data communication, and we agree: The [Al-Kahwati] system may further include a serial connection (304) through which it may draw power from a conventional power source. The energy storage elements (300) can be recharged via the serial connection (304), or completely sourced from it. It can also be trickle charged by power scavenging techniques which include solar panels, vibration generators, piezoelectric or inductive sources, or any other power scavenging units (312). As shown, the power supply management module (302) may regulate power provided to the MCU (306), actuator (308), and wireless subsystem 310 of device B." Al-Kahwati goes on to further claim, “6. The lock apparatus of claim 5, wherein the secondary authentication process includes establishing a wired data connection between the controlling unit and another device through an access port disposed on the lock apparatus.” Ans. 5-6 (citing Al-Kahwati ¶ 50, and claim 6). Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 8 Rejection of claim 39 over Beatty and Spunt Appellant contends: The cited disclosure in Beatty discloses only that “USB 137 may be used as a backup power source if the battery were to fail” and that “a micro USB 137 is used to power the system in case the battery does not have enough power to open the lock 100.” Beatty at [0039], [0048]. Beatty makes no disclosure that the USB 137 could also be used for communications and charging. Appeal Br. 12. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds: [0039] The USB 137 [in Beatty] may be used as a backup power source if the battery were to fail. [0048] A micro USB 137 is used to power the system in case the battery does not have enough power to open the lock 100. The known properties and functions of USB connectors are to transfer both data and to charge devices, as created in 1990, and evidenced by 2016/0087384 A1: . . . . [0003] Universal Serial Bus (USB) was developed in the 1990s in an effort to simplify the connections between computers and peripheral devices. It has become widely popular due to its compatibility with many platforms and operating systems, its low cost of implementation, and its ease of use. Most computers that are built today come with several USB ports, and USB is the interface of choice for most home and office peripherals including printers, cameras, modems, and portable storage devices. [0004] USB was also designed to standardize the connection of computer peripherals (including keyboards, pointing devices, digital cameras, printers, portable media players, disk drives and network adapters) to personal computers, both to communicate and to supply electric power. Final Act. 17-18 (first emphasis added). Appeal 2021-001275 Application 14/821,726 9 In other words, the Examiner determines, and we agree that it is well known for a USB to be used for “communications and charging.” On this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s finding of obviousness regarding the rejections of independent claims 6 and 39. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 6 and 39. CONCLUSION Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejections of 6 and 39, over the cited prior art of record, and we sustain the rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 6, 39 103 Al-Kahwati, Spunt 6, 39 6, 39 103 Beatty, Spunt 6, 39 Overall Outcome 6, 39 FINALITY AND 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED