SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2021

2020000594 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 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.
14/761,139 07/15/2015 Michael Pyle S2180-7010US(SPL-0259) 1024
79680 7590 05/04/2021
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
A2000
60 STATE STREET, 23RD FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02109
EXAMINER
JACKSON, JENISE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2021 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):
CKent@LALaw.com
docketing@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL PYLE
Appeal 2020-000594
Application 14/761,139
Technology Center 2400
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Schneider Electric USA, Inc. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000594
Application 14/761,139

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “securely generating user authentication
credentials.” Spec. 1:6–8.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a programmable device comprising:
a memory storing an identifier of an authentication
session;
a session interface including a display screen; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and
configured to:
generate the identifier of the authentication
session;
display the identifier of the authentication
session on the display screen;
receive an authentication credential;
decode the authentication credential to access
a session identifier and information associated with
a requestor of the authentication credential;
determine whether the session identifier
matches the identifier of the authentication session;
and
grant the requestor access to protected
functionality of the programmable device if the
session identifier matches the identifier of the
authentication session.
Appeal 2020-000594
Application 14/761,139

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Reference Date
Bell US 2008/0219186 A1 Sept. 11, 2008
Chen US 2008/0022377 A1 Jan. 24, 2008
Hoffman US 2003/0105725 A1 June 5, 2003
King US 2011/0299125 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Motsinger US 2005/0188423 A1 Aug. 25, 2005
Soulios US 2014/0351594 A1 Nov. 27, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
Claims References Final Act.
1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 19, 20 Soulios, King 4
3 Soulios, King, Hoffman 7
4–6 Soulios, King, Hoffman, Chen 7
8, 9 Soulios, King, Motsinger 9
11–13, 16–18 Soulios, King, Chen 11–12
14 Soulios, King, Chen, Bell 12
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding reason to combine Soulios and
King for purposes of claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Soulios and
King teaches or suggests “using the identifier of the authentication session,”
as recited in dependent claim 15?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–14, 19, and 20
Claim 1 is rejected as obvious over the combination of Soulios and
King. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2020-000594
Application 14/761,139

4
would not have been motivated to modify Soulios according to King”
because “Soulios is directed to improved methods of authentication between
computer servers” and adding King’s “display screen serves no purpose in
the context of [Soulios’] communication between computer servers that are
performing an authentication operation via a network connection.” Appeal
Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The claim does not
require that a display is permanently attached, nor does it require any
specific timing as to when the “display” limitation must be capable of
occurring. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Here, we determine a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
that there are numerous scenarios in which it would have been beneficial to
temporarily attach a display to a server, such as during initial installation to
ensure the authentication and credentialing was working, later viewing a log
file of authentication sessions, or even debugging during the design of the
authentication and credentialing software. Thus, we determine one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings
of the references, and we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
King’s display would serve “no purpose” in Soulios’ servers. See also Final
Act. 5–6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1, and
claims 2–14, 19, and 20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar
reasons. See Appeal Br. 6–7; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-000594
Application 14/761,139

5
Claims 15–18
Independent claim 15 recites a processor configured to “generate an
authentication credential using the identifier of the authentication session in
response to receiving the credential request.”
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that “claim[s] 10 and
15 are roughly equivalent” and therefore claim 15 is “rejected under similar
scope as claim 10.” Ans. 5; Final Act. 6. Claim 10 recites “generate an
authentication credential in response to receiving the credential request,” but
Appellant argues that claim 10 lacks the “using the identifier of the
authentication session” language found in claim 15. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner further states that “claim 11 is also rejected even
though it is more specific, and references in the rejection anticipate claim 15
as recited.” Ans. 5. However, Appellant correctly points out that claim 11
was rejected under a different combination and the Examiner relied on a
different prior art reference (Chen) for the additional limitations found in
claim 11. Reply Br. 7; Final Act. 11.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not yet sufficiently
addressed the additional language of claim 15 based on Soulios and King
alone. Thus, we determine the record lacks sufficient fact findings to sustain
the rejection of claim 15.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 15
and its dependent claims 16–18.
Appeal 2020-000594
Application 14/761,139

6
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 10,
15, 19, 20
103(a) Soulios, King 1, 2, 7,
10, 19, 20
15
3 103(a) Soulios, King, Hoffman 3
4–6 103(a) Soulios, King, Hoffman, Chen 4–6
8, 9 103(a) Soulios, King, Motsinger 8, 9
11–13,
16–18
103(a) Soulios, King, Chen 11–13 16–18
14 103(a) Soulios, King, Chen, Bell 14
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 19,
20
15–18
TIME TO RESPOND
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.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART