MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2019005980 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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.
15/097,767 04/13/2016 ANTHONY R. METKE PATCM18226-US-PRI 4387
22917 7590 04/01/2021
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
AMBAYE, SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ANTHONY R. METKE, MICHAEL F. KORUS, and
GEORGE POPOVICH
________________

Appeal 2019-005980
Application 15/097,767
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, and 9–20. Claims 2 and 8 are
canceled. Appeal Br. 12, 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Motorola Solutions, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005980
Application 15/097,767
2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to using a biometric
template to control access to a user credential for a shared wireless
communication device. Abstract.
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
(disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added)
1. A method for controlling access to a user credential, the
method comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device, an authentication request, the
authentication request including a device credential associated
with the mobile device;
[1] receiving, from the mobile device, a request for a biometric
template of a user;
[2] determining, by reference to at least one of a group
consisting of the device credential and an authorization
database, that the mobile device is authorized to receive the
biometric template of the user based on at least one attribute
controlling a use of the biometric template, [3] wherein the at
least one attribute controlling a use of the biometric template
includes one or more of an agency, a department, a precinct, a
jurisdiction, an assurance level, or an authority indicator; and
[4] in response to determining that the mobile device is
authorized to receive the biometric template of the user,
conveying the biometric template of the user to the mobile
device.
7. A method for authenticating a user on a mobile device, the
method comprising:
receiving, by a input/output interface of the mobile device, a
user identifying input;
in response to receiving the user identifying input,
authenticating, by the mobile device, to a biometric template
server;
in response to authenticating to the biometric template server,
Appeal 2019-005980
Application 15/097,767
3

conveying, by the mobile device to the biometric template
server, the user identifying input;
in response to conveying the user identifying input, receiving,
by the mobile device, one or more messages including a
biometric template for the user, [5] wherein the biometric
template is valid for only a biometric template lifetime, and the
mobile device deletes the biometric template when the biometric
template lifetime has expired; and
authenticating, by the mobile device, the user based on the
biometric template.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Jensen et al. (“Jensen”) US 2007/0220274 A1 Sept. 20, 2007
Siedlarz US 2008/0052527 A1 Feb. 28, 2008
Davida US 2011/0302420 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Jensen, Davida, and Siedlarz. Final Act. 3–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Jensen and Davida. Final Act. 8–17.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Appeal 2019-005980
Application 15/097,767
4

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 3–6
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Jensen’s use
of an encrypted enrollment template, which may be stored locally on a
computer after a successful, connected authentication, teaches or suggests
recitation [1], receiving, from the mobile device, a request for a biometric
template of a user. Final Act. 4 (citing Jensen ¶ 49).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because there is nothing in
Jensen “that teaches ‘receiving, from the mobile device, a request for a
biometric template of a user.’” Appeal Br. 6. Jensen, however, teaches that
the local client computer allows for biometric login when disconnected (i.e.,
without having to request the encrypted enrollment template or biometric
template) after a successful, connected authentication (i.e., an authentication
in which server 30 retrieves and encrypts the enrollment template). Jensen
¶¶ 43, 49. Thus, the initial, connected authentication teaches or suggests a
request for a biometric template (i.e., for the encrypted enrollment template
to use in enabling subsequent, disconnected authentications). Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Jensen teaches or suggests recitation [1].
The Examiner relies on Jensen’s determination that a biometric device
is to be trusted, combined with Davida’s attributes, teaches or suggests the
limitations of recitation [2], including determining that the mobile device is
authorized to receive the biometric template of the user based on at least one
attribute controlling a use of the biometric template. Final Act. 4–5 (citing
Jensen ¶¶ 38, 49; Davida ¶ 164); Ans. 3–4 (citing Davida ¶¶ 159–60). The
Examiner finds that Jensen’s use of this determination in allowing an
enrollment template to be passed to the biometric device teaches or suggests
recitation [4], in response to determining that the mobile device is
Appeal 2019-005980
Application 15/097,767
5

authorized to receive the biometric template of the user, conveying the
biometric template of the user to the mobile device. Final Act. 4 (citing
Jensen ¶¶ 39, 49); Ans. 2–3.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “nothing in Davida
teaches or suggests ‘determining . . . that the mobile device is authorized to
receive the biometric template of the user based on at least one attribute
controlling a use of the biometric template.’” Appeal Br. 7. In particular,
Appellant argues that, while claim 1 “calls for the authorization to apply to
the mobile device, . . . Davida teaches that ‘Users may have attributes
associated with them.’” Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of
Examiner error, however, because the Examiner’s findings show that Jensen
alone teaches determining that a device is authorized to receive a biometric
template. Final Act. 4. Moreover, the Examiner’s findings show that Davida
teaches biometric based applications that may be specific to a device
(Davida provides an example of a door access capability that provides access
to particular rooms). Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Davida ¶ 160). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Davida would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary
skill modifying Jensen to not only determine that a device (e.g., a mobile
device) can be trusted to receive a biometric template, but that there is also a
reason for the mobile device to receive the biometric template, and thus
authorization for the device to receive the biometric template. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Jensen and Davida teaches
or suggests recitations [2] and [4].
The Examiner relies on the listing of employees of an organization in
Siedlarz to teach or suggest recitation [3], wherein the at least one attribute
controlling a use of the biometric template includes one or more of an
agency, a department, a precinct, a jurisdiction, an assurance level, or an
Appeal 2019-005980
Application 15/097,767
6

authority indicator. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Siedlarz ¶¶ 20–26); Ans. 4–5
(citing Siedlarz ¶¶ 52–53). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because
each table in Siedlarz “stores a plurality of anonymous records,” and a
“database of anonymous records is in no way related to Applicants’
invention.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because the
anonymous records of Siedlarz are “personal reference codes and biometric
templates” with individuals enrolled either individually “or under the
auspices of an entity or organization.” Siedlarz ¶ 22. We note that whether a
table for an entity or organization includes a particular biometric template is
an attribute of the biometric template. Moreover, Appellant does not
distinguish the claimed “one or more of an agency, a department, a precinct,
a jurisdiction, an assurance level, or an authority indicator” from the entity
or organization of Siedlarz. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Jensen, Davida, and Siedlarz teaches or suggests recitation
[3].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and claims 3–6, which Appellant does not argue separately.
Claims 7 and 9–20
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner finds that Jensen’s use of a time
stamp for validation teaches or suggests recitation [5], wherein the biometric
template is valid for only a biometric template lifetime, and the mobile
device deletes the biometric template when the biometric template lifetime
has expired. Final Act. 9 (citing Jensen ¶¶ 37–40, 208–09); Ans. 6.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “[a] time stamp is
vastly different from a biometric template lifetime. A time stamp indicates
Appeal 2019-005980
Application 15/097,767
7

when a certain event happened, while a biometric template lifetime is a
period for which a template can exist.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because
Jensen teaches that “biometric device [signs] the authentication template
with a signing key, and potentially, a time stamp for further validation.”
Jensen ¶ 37. We note that it is apparent that Jensen’s time stamp can be used
to determine the age of the authentication template. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Jensen suggests that in validating an authentication
template—a biometric template—the template can be deemed too old for
use, and thus, having expired, be deleted. Ans. 6. Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that Jensen teaches or suggests recitation [5].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 7, and claims 9–20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar
reasons. Appeal Br. 10.
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6 103 Jensen, Davida,
Siedlarz
1, 3–6
7, 9–20 103 Jensen, Davida 7, 9–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7,
9–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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).
AFFIRMED