ASSA ABLOY ABDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 18, 20202020002575 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation