ASSA ABLOY AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2020

2020002575 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2020)

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.
16/032,185 07/11/2018 Stig LAGERSTEDT 5544-51-PUS-CON 5508
22442 7590 11/18/2020
Sheridan Ross PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
ZARRINEH, SHAHRIAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2020 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):
e-docket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STIG LAGERSTEDT, DANIEL BERG, DANIEL BAILIN,
MARK ROBINTON, and MASHA LEE DAVIS

Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 and 15–24, which constitute all
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 A telephonic hearing was held for this appeal on October 26, 2020.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ASSA
ABLOY AB, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to updating access permissions of
users in an access control system. Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 1, 13, 17, 19; Figs. 1,
5– 8.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving contextual information regarding a first user;
based on the received contextual information, determining a
credential update to perform in connection with at least one device
associated with the first user;
generating a first message that contains at least one instruction
to activate at least one credential;
transmitting the first message to the at least one device
associated with the first user; and
transmitting an update message to a physical access control
reader to activate the physical access control reader’s ability to
process the at least one credential when activated.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Benes et al. US 2008/0160984 Al July 3, 2008
Lowe US 2006/0224901 Al Oct. 5, 2006

3 The Final Action refers to a double patenting rejection over the claims of
US 10,050,948 (Lagerstedt et al.) for which the Examiner states “the
rejection is held in [a]beyance.” Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

3
Lagerstedt et al. US 10,050,948 B2 Aug. 14, 2018

Claims 1–13 and 15–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Benes and Lowe. Final Act. 4–15.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. As discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions of Examiner error.
Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding that Lowe
teaches the claim 1 limitation “transmitting an update message to a physical
access control reader to activate the physical access control reader's ability
to process the at least one credential when activated” (also referred to as
“disputed limitation”). Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 2–4.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Benes and
Lowe teaches the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner
finds Lowe teaches the disputed limitation. Id. at 6 (citing Lowe ¶¶ 27, 10).
The Examiner equates Lowe’s statement “Each reader 108 is adapted for
exchanging information with the controller 102” to updating message and
Lowe’s statement “for requesting data from the mobile device 112 to verify
the authenticity of the mobile device” to credential/authentication
verification. Id. (quoting Lowe ¶ 27). The Examiner finds Lowe’s statement
“upon verification of credential information stored on the mobile device
112” meets the claimed processing credential when activated. Id. (quoting
Lowe ¶ 27).
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

4
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues “there is no demonstration by
the Examiner that Lowe discloses transmitting an update message to a
physical access control reader to active[sic] the physical access control
reader's ability to process at least one credential when activated.” Appeal
Br. 7–8.
In the Answer, the Examiner determines the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the disputed limitation “transmitting an update message to a
physical access control reader to activate the physical access control reader's
ability to process the at least one credential when activated.” Ans. 3–5. The
Examiner refers to the Specification portions identified by Appellant as
support of the claimed features and interpretation (Appeal Br. 3) and
determines the disputed limitation
is about a communication among a controller device, reader
device and a mobile device in which the controller
communicates with the mobile device and can have credential
data loaded thereon remotely updated, enabled, disabled,
revoked with a message send from controller and also
communicates with reader device and exchange these
information with the reader device and enables the reader
device to verify the authenticity of the mobile device credential
as being a proximity reader and allow the mobile device to
access a door protecting access to a secure room or etc.
Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner then quotes portions of Lowe, paragraph 27 referring to
Figure 1, to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation (shown in emphasis
in brackets):
Each reader 108 is adapted for exchanging information
with the controller 102 [equated to the reader receiving
updating message from the controller] and for requesting data
from the mobile device 112 to verify the authenticity of the
mobile device [equated to credential /authentication
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

5
verification where the communication network 116 provides a
way for the controller 102 to automatically notify and/or update
information to the mobile devices 112 related to the access
system 100 (see ¶ 31), where the mobile device can have
credential data loaded thereon remotely updated by a
controller (see abstract)].
Typically, a reader 108 is associated with a particular
asset (e.g., a door protecting access to a secure room, a
computer lock protecting sensitive information or computer
files, a lock on a safe, and the like). In one embodiment, upon
verification of credential information stored on the mobile
device 112 [equated to processing credential when activated],
the reader 108 generates signals facilitating execution of the
results of interrogating the mobile device (e.g.,
engages/disengages a locking mechanism, allows/disallows
movement of a monitored article, temporarily disables itself,
activates an alarm system, provides access to a computer
system, provides access to a particular document, and the like).
Id. at 4–5.
The Examiner additionally refers to Lowe, paragraph 10, Abstract and
paragraphs 26–31, 38–41 for more detail. Id. at 5.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates the previously presented
arguments and argues the Examiner’s claim interpretation of the disputed
limitation set forth in the Answer is unreasonably broad and the Examiner
fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Reply Br. 2–4.
According to Appellant:
Appellant cannot agree with the Examiner's logic because
the Examiner is only establishing that Lowe discloses
mechanisms for updating a reader after it has been activated.
The claim feature identified above specifically recites
transmitting an update message .. . to activate the physical
access control reader's ability to process at least one
credential. Appellant submits that the Examiner has still failed
to establish that the combination of Benes and Lowe disclose
transmitting an update message that activates an ability of the
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

6
physical access control reader to process at least one credential.
Everything relied upon by the Examiner's arguments in the
Examiner's Answer speak to capabilities and features of a system
and a reader device after the reader device has been activated.
Id. at 3.
Appellant argues
The Examiner's arguments in the Examiner's Answer are
similarly insufficient to those arguments previously presented by
the Examiner where the Examiner at most demonstrate that Lowe
discloses “the reader 108 generates signals facilitating execution
of the results of interrogating the mobile device” or that a
“control panel is kept up to date with authorization codes
corresponding to persons with authorized access” to a location.
There is no demonstration by the Examiner that Lowe discloses
transmitting an update message to a physical access control
reader to active[sic] the physical access control reader's ability
to process at least one credential when activated. The “activity”
information referenced by the Examiner at pages 4 and 5 of the
Examiner's Answer should not be confused with the claimed
feature related to transmitting an update message to activate the
physical access control reader's ability to process at least one
credential when activated.

Id.
As discussed below, on the record before us, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument because the Examiner provides sufficient evidence to
support the finding that Lowe teaches the disputed limitation.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

7
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Our reviewing court
states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). However, the broadest reasonable
interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith
Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The correct inquiry in
giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification is “an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation
that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” Id. at 1382–83 (quoting In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
We now refer to the disputed limitation discussed, supra, which
requires “transmitting an update message to a physical access control
reader to activate the physical access control reader's ability to process the
at least one credential when activated.”
The disputed limitation recites “when activated” and does not specify
when the “when activated” occurs. In the context of the claim, “when
activated” occurs to activate the reader’s ability to process the at least one
credential. The Specification referred to by Appellant does not persuasively
describe “when activated” to exclude earlier activation of the reader.
Appellant’s summary of claim 1 (Appeal Brief 3) identifies portions of the
Specification that support claim 1, and are relied upon by the Examiner in
interpreting claim 1 (and dependent claim 12, discussed infra). None4 of the

4 At the Hearing, Appellant was requested to identify portions of the
Specification that support Appellant’s claim 1 interpretation and Appellant
referred to paragraph 96, also identified as page 32. Tr. 5:19–11. As
discussed at the Hearing, this portion refers to a reader that may be inactive
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

8
identified portions of the Specification are persuasive to Appellant’s
interpretation that the claim does not cover earlier activation of a reader.
Additionally, we note the disputed limitation does not recite term(s) that
would limit “when activated” to an inactive reader that must be activated.
For example, in US 10,050,948, identified in the double patenting rejection,
supra, note 3, claim 1 recites “wherein the at least one credential is capable
of being transmitted to the one or more physical access control readers prior
to activation but is incapable of being verified by the one or more physical
access control readers prior to activation” (emphasis added).
Therefore, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s findings that Lowe
teaches the disputed limitation. In particular, Lowe teaches the reader is
activated and processes the credentials. Lowe ¶ 27; Fig. 1. Additionally,
Appellant’s argument that Lowe teaches system capabilities “after the reader
device has been activated” (Reply Brief 3) supports the Examiner’s broad
and reasonable interpretation of claim 1 applies to Lowe’s teachings.
Moreover, we note Lowe, Summary, paragraph 13, teaches updating a
reader.
The Examiner provides prima facie support for the rejection of claim
1. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on
any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record
before us, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claim 1,

and may require activation. However, as acknowledged by Appellant, this
portion was not identified in the record as supporting the disputed limitation.
Id.
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

9
independent claims 15 and 21 that recite similar limitations, and dependent
claims 2–13, 16–20, and 22–24 as these claims are not argued separately.
Dependent claim 12
Dependent claim 12 is set forth below (emphasis added):
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
based on the received contextual information,
determining a credential update to perform in connection with
at least one device associated with a second user, the second
user being different than the first user (also referred to as
“disputed feature”);
generating a second message that contains at least one
instruction to update at least one credential for the second user;
and
transmitting the second message to the at least one device
associated with the second user.

In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Benes and
Lowe teaches the limitations of claim 12. Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner
finds Benes teaches the disputed limitation. Id. at 10 (citing Benes ¶¶ 17,
19, 31, 34, 43, 45, 47).
Appellant argues
The Examiner cites various paragraphs of Benes as disclosing
this [“disputed”] feature, but Appellant cannot discern which
passage of Benes actually discloses the contextual information
(that was used to trigger the credential update for the first user)
is also used to determine that a credential update is to be
performed in connection with at least one device associated
with a second user. Said another way, Appellant cannot find
any passage in Benes of an instance of contextual information
being used to determine that a credential update should be
performed in connection with devices associated with different
users.
Appeal Br. 8.
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

10
In the Answer, the Examiner proffers that Appellant does not identify
portions of the Specification that refer to the claim 12 disputed limitation
and the Examiner notes that the claim 12 disputed limitation is similar to
claim 1 but includes a first user and a second user. Ans. 6. The Examiner
then determines, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation
“based on the received contextual information, determining a credential
update to perform in connection with at least one device associated with a
second user” is about a user device and when the device enters to a coverage
area or in a proximate of the controlled area, the controller remotely updates
the mobile device credential. Ans. 6–7. The Examiner also finds
At the time of the invention was made, it would have been
obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to indicate that by
combining the Bene and Lowe teaching to indicate that when any
mobile device enters a controlled area or is in a coverage area,
the controller remotely updates the mobile devices credential and
when the mobile devices is in proximate of the reader, uses the
updated credential to engages/disengages a locking mechanism
of a door. In other word[s], it does not make any difference
which user is trying to engages/disengages the door lock, they
get the updated credential from controller and communicate that
credential with the reader in order to engages/disengages a door
locking mechanism.
Id. at 8–9.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues “[w]hat the Examiner is still
failing to appreciate is that claim 12 recites based on the received contextual
information (that was used to trigger the credential update for the first user)
determining a credential update to perform in connection with at least one
device associated with a second user” and “[t]he Examiner is only
establishing that a mobile device is updated based on its own position or
location.” Reply Br. 4–5. According to Appellant, the Examiner “never
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

11
argues or establishes that this action results in determining a credential
update to perform in connection with at least one device associated with a
different user carrying a different device.” Id. at 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner’s
interpretation of the disputed limitation is broad and reasonable. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364. The interpretation is
consistent with the Specification and Appellant does not identify
persuasively a portion of the Specification that is inconsistent with the
Examiner’s interpretation. The references teach a user and device, and
Appellant provides no persuasive argument to limit the teachings to only a
first user and device. Similar to our discussion of claim 1, when the device
enters the controlled area, a credential update occurs. This applies to a first
device of a first user as well as a second device of a second user. We agree
with the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Bene and Lowe
teaching that when any mobile device enters a controlled area or is in a
coverage area, the controller remotely updates the mobile devices credential
and when the mobile devices is in proximate of the reader, uses the updated
credential to engages/disengages a locking mechanism of a door. Ans. 8–9.
Along with the unreasonably narrow claim interpretations, supra,
Appellant also argues an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited
references to attempt to limit the teaching to the express disclosures, and
asserts an overly demanding standard of obviousness. However, we note:
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

12
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the
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.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
In view of the above, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 12.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 and independent claims 15 and 21 which recite the disputed
limitations, and dependent claims 2–14, 16–20, and 22–24 as these claims
are not argued separately.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) Benes, Lowe 1–13, 15–24
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 15–24

Appeal 2020-002575
Application 16/032,185

13
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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED