Schlage Lock Company LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 25, 2021

2021000444 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 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.
14/902,207 12/30/2015 Andreas Anton Bloom ALGN-1005 5981
122204 7590 05/25/2021
Allegion
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
MERCADO, GABRIEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2021 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):
taft-ip-docket@taftlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDREAS ANTON BLOOM and FRANK MAURER
__________________

Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES P. CALVE, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 25, 26, and 29–
36, which are all pending claims.2 See Appeal Br. 2.3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Schlage Lock Company LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 5–8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20–24, 27, 28, and 37 are cancelled. See
Appeal Br. 52–57 (Claims App.); see also Final Act. 2.
3 All references to the Appeal Brief refer to the Supplemental Appeal Brief
that was filed on June 5, 2020.
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A method of operating a reader device associated
with a physical access point in an access control system, the
method comprising:
operating the reader device in a normal mode in which at
least a credential reading functionality of the reader device and
a credential processing functionality of the reader device,
different from the credential reading functionality, are
activated, wherein the reader device is able to receive a
credential from a mobile device when the credential reading
functionality is activated and unable to receive the credential
from the mobile device when the credential reading
functionality is deactivated, and wherein the reader device is
able to analyze the credential to determine whether the
credential is valid when the credential processing functionality
is activated and unable to analyze the credential to determine
whether the credential is valid when the credential processing
functionality is deactivated;
analyzing, with the reader device, criteria to determine
whether to operate the reader device in a secure mode selected
from a plurality of secure modes, wherein the plurality of
secure modes includes at least a first secure mode in which the
credential reading functionality is deactivated and a second
secure mode, different from the first secure mode, in which the
credential processing functionality is deactivated;
operating the reader device in the secure mode selected
from the plurality of secure modes in response to determining
that the criteria indicate to operate the reader device in the
secure mode; and
returning operation of the reader device from the secure
mode to the normal mode in response to determining the
criteria to operate the reader device in the secure mode are no
longer satisfied.
Appeal Br. 52 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26, and 29–36 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Davis ’301,4 Braams,5 and Davis
’220.6
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Davis ’301, Braams, Davis ’220, and Padilla.7
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26, and 29–36
Rejected over Davis ’301, Braams, and Davis ’220
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16
Davis ’301 is cited to teach operating a reader in a normal mode with
the credential reading, credential processing, and credential communication
functions activated and a secure mode with the credential reading, credential
processing, and/or credential communication functions disabled. Final Act.
12–14, 16–18 (citing Davis ’301 ¶¶ 27, 30, 33, 37–39, 51, 60–62, Figs. 1–3,
5). The Examiner cites Braams to teach a card reader with multiple secure
modes, and determines it would have been obvious to provide Davis ’301
with multiple secure modes by disabling a credential reading function in a
first secure mode, a credential processing function in a second secure mode,
and optionally, a credential communication function in a third secure mode
for predictable results of a more flexible access control system that supports
multiple secure modes and disables only some functionalities of the reader
according to user preferences. Id. at 14–15, 18–19 (citing Braams ¶ 20).

4 WO 2013/009301 A1, published January 17, 2013 (“Davis ’301”).
5 US 2013/0119130 A1, published May 16, 2013 (“Braams”).
6 US 2010/0039220 A1, published February 18, 2010 (“Davis ’220”).
7 US 2011/0226849 A1, published September 22, 2011 (“Padilla”).
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

4
The Examiner finds that Davis ’220 disables a reader temporarily for
a predetermined time following credential violations and returns the reader
from the secure mode to the normal mode when the criteria for operating the
reader in a secure mode are no longer satisfied. Id. at 15–16, 19–20 (citing
Davis ’220 ¶¶ 17, 19, 23, 24, 29–31). The Examiner determines it would
have been obvious to modify Davis ’301 to return operation of the reader
from the secure mode to the normal mode when the secure mode is no
longer required to improve the usability of the reader. Id.
Appellant argues that Davis ’301 disables reader functions but does
not specify what functionality disabled. Appeal Br. 9, 16–17, 24. Appellant
asserts that the Examiner concedes at pages 14 and 17–18 of the Final Office
Action that Davis ’301 does not analyze criteria to determine whether to
operate the reader device in a secure mode selected from plural modes. Id.
at 9, 17, 24–25. Appellant argues that Braams teaches multiple secure
modes but does not teach specific secure modes. Id. at 9–10, 17–18, 25–26.
The Examiner correctly finds that the normal mode of Davis ’301’s
reader includes credential reading, processing, and communication. Final
Act. 13 (citing Davis ’301 ¶¶ 60, 61), 16 (citing id. ¶¶ 33, 38). Appellant
does not dispute these findings. See Appeal Br. 8–12, 15–20, 23–27.
The Examiner correctly finds that Davis ’301 disables some or all
reader functions based on criteria such as a potential attack on reader 104.
Final Act. 12–14 (citing Davis ’301 ¶¶ 30, 33, 62), 16–17 (citing id.). Davis
’301 “disable[es] some or all functions of the reader 104 until rebooted.”
Davis ’301 ¶ 62. These functions include reading credential data (id. ¶ 60),
processing credential data to assess validity (id. ¶ 61), and communicating
credential data to networked device 108 (id. ¶ 64). Id. ¶¶ 30–33, 60, 61, 64.
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

5
According to Appellant’s Specification, a secure mode is a condition
when a reader function is deactivated. Secure operating mode 122 occurs
when the credential reading capability is deactivated so reader 102 cannot
read a credential. Spec. 5:5–12. Secure operating mode 126 occurs when
the credential processing function is disabled so reader 102 cannot determine
a credential 106’s validity or grant access at an access point. Id. at 5:13–18.
Secure operating mode 128 occurs when the credential communication
function of reader 102 is disabled. Id. at 5:19–24. Also, “reader 102 may
include a secure operating mode 130 in which any combination of the three
secure operating modes 122, 126, 128 are utilized.” Id. at 5:25–26. For
example, all three secure modes 122, 126, 128 may be disabled in secure
operating mode 130. Id. at 5:26–28. Thus, a secure operating mode, as
recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 16, and interpreted in light of the
Specification, refers to a condition of one or more disabled reader functions.
Like the claimed secure mode, Davis ’301 disables some or all reader
functions to secure reader 104 in response to a potential attack. Davis ’301
¶ 62. Thus, Davis ’301 teaches conditions of reader 104 that correspond to
the claimed secure mode, namely, Davis ’301 disables one or more reader
functions to secure reader 104 against attack. Davis ’301 teaches a secure
mode of reader 104 that deactivates only a credential reading function, a
secure mode that deactivates only a credential processing function, and/or a
secure mode that deactivates only a credential communication function, and
secure modes that disable combinations of, or all, reader functions. Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Davis ’301 disables functions of reader 104 without specifying what
functionality is disabled.
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

6
Here, the secure modes are claimed and described as disabling certain
functions of the reader after analyzing unspecified criteria. Spec. 5:5–29
(describing the “criteria” for selecting whether to operate the reader in a
secure mode selected from plural secure modes as certain times and/or on
certain days). Davis ’301 similarly analyzes whether reader 104 is subject to
an attack (i.e., as the claimed “criteria”) to determine whether to operate the
reader in a secure mode that deactivates credential reading functionality (i.e.,
the claimed “first secure mode” and/or credential processing functionality
(i.e., the claimed “second secure mode”). See Davis ’301 ¶ 62.
We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
conceded at pages 14 and 17–18 of the Final Office Action that Davis ’301
fails to teach the disabling of reader functions to secure a reader. Contrary
to Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner finds that Davis ’301 “teaches
embodiments where all functionalities are disabled,” and also “embodiments
where only some of the functionalities are disabled.” Final Act. 14 (citing
Davis ’301 ¶ 62); see also id. at 18; Ans. 5 (finding “another way of stating
the concept of disabling of some of [Davis ’301’s] reader’s functionalities
. . . is: ‘disabling at least one of the reader’s functionalities’”).
To the extent that Appellant premises the Examiner’s purported
concession on the Examiner’s reliance on Braams, the Examiner does not
rely on Braams for teaching the first and second claimed security modes.
Instead, the Examiner relies on Braams to teach a card reader that supports
multiple secure modes. See Final Act. 14–15, 18–19 (citing Braams ¶ 20).
We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Braams does
not teach the claimed first and second secure modes. The argument is not
persuasive, at least because the Examiner cites Davis for these limitations.
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

7
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16.
Claims 4, 13, 19, and 26
Appellant argues the patentability of claims 4, 13, 19, and 26 because
they depend from independent claims 1, 9, or 16. Appeal Br. 12–13, 20, 28.
Because we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16, this argument is not
persuasive. We sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4, 13, 19, and 26.
Claims 3, 11, and 18
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “the criteria include at least
one of a time of day, a day of week, a holiday, a command, and a setting”
Appeal Br. 52 (Claims App.). Claims 11 and 18 depend from claims 9 and
16 and recite “the parameters include at least one of a time of day, a day of
week, a holiday, and a command.” Id. at 54, 55. The Examiner finds that
Davis ’301 teaches readers that receive and analyze user input according to
access control rules to determine if users can access an asset secured by the
reader 104, and the access control rules include time zone and day of the
week. Final Act. 20 (citing Davis ’301 ¶ 33). The Examiner reasons that an
attempt to access an asset using a credential outside of the allowed access
time period, as defined by the access control rules, would result in the access
attempt and credential being considered invalid so an attempted access that
is during a time period (e.g., a day of the week) that is outside of the allowed
access time period according to the access control rules is denied. Ans. 7–8.
Appellant argues that asset access decisions made using access control
rules for entry to an asset are unrelated to determining whether to operate a
reader in a secure mode selected from plural secure modes based on criteria
that include a time of day, day of week, a command, and a setting as recited
in claims 3, 11, and 18. Appeal Br. 13–15, 21–23, 28–31.
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

8
The Examiner correctly finds that Davis ’301’s access control rules
govern access by a user of a credential to an asset based on a time zone and
day of the week. Davis ’301 ¶ 33. The access control rules are used by the
decision-making components of the readers to analyze input received from a
user and determine, based on the received input, if a user is entitled to access
an asset secured by the reader. Id. Thus, the access control rules are used by
reader 104 to analyze data that the reader reads from a credential. Id. The
access control rules are not “criteria” and “parameters” used to determine
whether to operate a reader in a secure mode by deactivating the credential
reading, credential processing, or credential communication functionalities.
Appeal Br. 52–55 (Claims App.). Instead, Davis ’301’s reader reads and
processes credentials using access control rules to determine if the user can
access an asset secured by reader 104. Davis ’301 ¶ 33. That is, Davis ’301
teaches reading a user’s credential and processing it by applying the access
control rules to determine whether the user can access an asset. Davis ’301
¶ 33. But, Davis does not teach or suggest determining from the access
control rules whether to operate the reader in a secure mode from a plurality
of secure modes, including deactivating credential reading functionality and
deactivating credential processing functionality, as required by the claim
language.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 11, and 18.
Claims 29 and 33
Claims 29 and 33 depend from claims 1 and 9 respectively and claim
the reader has a normal mode with credential communication functionality
activated and a third secure mode in which the credential communication
functionality is deactivated. Appeal Br. 56, 57 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

9
The Examiner finds that Davis ’301 teaches a normal mode with the
credential communication functionality of the reader device activated to
allow communication of the credential to a host system. Final Act. 23. The
Examiner finds that Braams teaches multiple secure modes, and Davis ’301
disables some or all reader functionalities to include deactivating credential
communication functionality as recited in claim 29 as an obvious way to
support multiple secure modes for flexible access. Id. at 25–26.
Appellant argues that Braams teaches a reader having one or more
secure modes but does not teach a third secure mode that deactivates the
credential communication functionality as claimed. Appeal Br. 31–32.
As discussed above for claims 1, 9, and 16, Davis ’301 teaches to
disable some or all reader functions in response to potential attacks on the
reader 104. Davis ’301 ¶ 62. The reader functions that may be disabled
individually or in combination include reading the credentials of a user (id.
¶ 60), processing the user’s credentials (id. ¶ 61), and communicating the
user’s credentials (id. ¶ 64). For the reader function of communicating the
user’s credentials, the reader communicates data used to make an access
control decision to networked device 108 via a communication link. Id.
¶ 27. In this arrangement, a first analysis of a user’s credential data can be
performed by reader 104, and a second analysis of card numbers, keys, or
other secured data maintained on the user’s credential 124 can be performed
by a networked device 108. Id. ¶ 64. A skilled artisan would understand
based on these teachings of Davis ’301 that the one or more reader functions
disabled in Davis ’301 include credentials communications functionality in
which reader 104 communicates a user’s credentials to another device 108.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 33.
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

10
Claims 30–32 and 34–36
Claims 30–32 and 34–36 depend from one of claims 1, 9, and 16 and
further recite second and/or third secure modes in which one or more of the
credential reading, credential processing, and credential communication
functionalities is activated/enabled or deactivated/disabled. Appeal Br. 57
(Claims App.). For example, claim 30 recites “wherein in the third secure
mode, the credential reading functionality is activated and the credential
communication functionality is deactivated.” Claims 31 and 32 depend from
claims 1 and 9 and recite “wherein in the second secure mode, the credential
reading functionality is activated [enabled] and the credential processing
function is deactivated [disabled].” Id.
The Examiner correctly finds that Davis ’301 operates a reader in a
normal mode with credential reading, credential processing, and credential
communication functionalities activated and secure modes in which some or
all of the reader functions are disabled in secure modes that teach or suggest
the second and third secure modes recited in claims 30–32 and 34–36. Final
Act. 23–24; Ans. 6–8. The Examiner finds that Braams teaches a smart card
reader that provides one or more secure modes and reasonably determines it
would have been obvious to operate a reader in multiple secure modes with
some reader functions enabled and other reader functions disabled in Davis
’301 for a more flexible access control system that supports multiple secure
modes. Final Act. 25–26.
Appellant argues that the Examiner concedes that Davis ’301 lacks the
claimed second and third secure modes, and Braams teaches that a reader
may have one or more secure modes, but Braams does not teach the claimed
second and third secure modes. Appeal Br. 33–40, 43–49.
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

11
As discussed above for claims 1, 9, and 16, Davis ’301 teaches reader
functions of reading credential data (Davis ’301 ¶ 60), processing credential
data to determine its validity (id. ¶ 61), and communicating credential data
from reader 104 to networked device 108 for analysis (id. ¶ 64). Davis ’301
teaches that some or all of these reader functions can be disabled. Id. ¶ 62.
Therefore, Davis ’301 teaches and suggests multiple secure modes of reader
operation and operating the reader in secure modes with different functions,
individually and in combination, disabled or enabled, as desired, to provide
the desired, predictable functionalities. Davis ’301 thus teaches the claimed
second and third secure modes in which some functions are disabled and
other functions are enabled. Id. By disabling all reader functions (id. ¶ 62),
Davis ’301 also teaches the third secure mode of claim 35 in which all of the
reader functions are disabled.8 Id. Braams confirms it is known to operate a
reader in one or more secure modes as desired. See Braams ¶ 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 30–32 and 34–36.
Claim 25
Rejected over Davis ’301, Braams, Davis ’220, and Padilla
The Examiner cites Padilla to teach a tamper switch that shuts down a
reader and triggers an alarm when physical tampering is detected. See Final
Act. 27. Appellant argues the patentability of claim 25 because it depends
from claim 1 and Padilla fails to remedy the noted deficiencies as to claim 1.
Appeal Br. 49–51. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1, there are no
deficiencies for Padilla to cure and we also sustain the rejection of claim 25.

8 As discussed above, the Specification describes secure modes as modes in
which a reader function(s) is deactivated. Spec. 5:5–29. Davis ’301 teaches
and suggests such secure modes by disabling some or all reader functions
while other functions remain activated. See Davis ’301 ¶¶ 30–39, 60–62, 64.
Appeal 2021-000444
Application 14/902,207

12
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 9, 11,
13, 16, 18,
19, 26, 29–36
103 Davis ’301, Braams,
Davis ’220
1, 4, 9, 13,
16, 19, 26,
29–36
3, 11, 18
25 103 Davis ’301, Braams,
Davis ’220, Padilla
25
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 9, 13,
16, 19, 25,
26, 29–36
3, 11, 18
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).
AFFIRMED IN PART