ASSA ABLOY AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2021000628 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
15/561,373 09/25/2017 Tomas JONSSON 2943ST-36-PUS 8132
22442 7590 07/01/2021
Sheridan Ross PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
MAPA, MICHAEL Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
e-docket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMAS JONSSON and HAKAN OLSSON
Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on June 3, 2021. A transcript of
the oral hearing was entered into the record on June 22, 2021.
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. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims and disclosure are directed to “determining whether a
portable key device is located within the active area” relative to a barrier
“using two antennas” and techniques “to increase the accuracy in
determining whether a portable key device is located in an active area in
relation to a barrier.” Spec. 1:4–6, 2:7–8.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for determining whether a portable key
device is located in an active area in relation to a barrier, the
method being performed in an access control device and
comprising the steps of:
detecting an angle of arrival of a wireless signal from the
portable key device using two and only two antennas provided
such that a straight line between the two and only two antennas
crosses the barrier;
determining whether the portable key device is located
within the active area based on the angle of arrival, wherein the
active area is defined to be outside of the barrier; and
triggering access control when the portable key device is
determined to be located in the active area.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Beggs US 2004/0075046 A1 Apr. 22, 2004
Herman US 2008/0092443 A1 Apr. 24, 2008
Choi US 2014/0162704 A1 June 12, 2014
McIntyre US 2014/0225713 A1 Aug. 14, 2014

Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Beggs and Herman. Final Act. 20–30.
Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beggs, Herman, and McIntyre. Final Act. 30–33.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Beggs, Herman, and Choi. Final Act. 33–35.
OPINION
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 in the Answer that were made to
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. As discussed below, we are
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Beggs as disclosing the
recited limitations of using two antennas, determining the presence of a
portable key device within an active area, and triggering access control. See
Final Act. 20–25 (citing Beggs ¶¶ 5, 12, 29–31, 38–39, 42, Figs. 1, 2a, 2c,
6). For the “detecting an angle of arrival” limitation, the Examiner relies on
the disclosure in Herman of antenna modules 28 for determining an angle of
approach of mobile unit module 16. Final Act. 25–26 (citing Herman ¶¶ 35,
36, Fig. 3a). The Examiner specifically maps the recited “determining
whether the portable key device is located within the active area” to the
disclosure of “[t]he device 42 then processes the signals the device 42
receives from each antenna block 28, and determines an angle of approach
of the mobile unit module 16” of Herman. Id.
Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373

4
The Examiner further finds combining Herman with Beggs would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill because:
[T]he modification would involve a simple substitution of one
known element (i.e. detecting the location of the object body
utilizing changes in radio waves as taught by Beggs) with
another known element (i.e. detecting the location of the object
body utilizing changes in radio waves, wherein the detection
utilizes the angle of arrival principle as taught by Herman) to
obtain the predictable result of the system detecting the location
of the object body utilizing changes in radio waves (i.e. as
taught by both Beggs, & Herman).
Id. at 27.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s proposed combination is
erroneous because, unlike “the present invention [which] is concerned with
determining whether a portable key device is in active area for triggering
access control,” Beggs does not disclose a portable key device, nor “any use
of key, lock or even access control.” Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant further
contends the missing limitation is not taught or suggested by Herman’s
disclosure of “a remote control for persons of disabilities approaching the
door from a predefined direction.” Id. at 14 (citing Herman ¶ 4). Referring
to paragraph 42 and Figure 4b of Herman, Appellant argues that configuring
two antennas linearly “would not enable the determination of whether a
portable key device is located within an active area that is defined to be
outside of the barrier” and instead, “could result in determining the same
DOA [(direction of arrival)] for a person inside the barrier and another
person outside of the barrier, but at the angle relative to the linear array of
antenna elements.” Appeal Br. 15. Based on these challenges to the
reference teachings, Appellant argues:
Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373

5
Herman, like Beggs, fails to disclose “triggering access control
when the portable key device is located in the active area
(defined to be outside of the barrier).” Rather, Herman
contemplates that the door can be remotely opened as long as a
particular DOA is detected. There is no concern in Herman of
determining whether a mobile unit (16) is inside or outside of a
barrier.
Id. at 16.3
In response, the Examiner points to description of the access control
process in pages 7 and 8 of Appellant’s Specification and finds the broadest,
reasonable interpretation of the claim term “active area” does not encompass
the specific situations described in Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 7–8.
The Examiner also finds the recited “access control” and “barrier,” as well
as “active area,” are not explicitly described by the claims or the disclosure.
Id. at 8–10. Consequently, the Examiner adopts the broadest interpretation
for these claim terms and characterizes the “activation line” of Beggs as the
recited “active area” where the presence of a body is detected for preventing
the door from accidentally closing on a nearby body. Id. at 16–17 (citing
Beggs ¶¶ 12, 16, 29, Figs. 1–2a).
The Examiner also explains that the recited “determining whether the
portable key device is located within the active area based on the angle of
arrival” is met by the proposed combination because “both Beggs and
Herman disclose[] having 2 detector antenna elements that detect[] signals
coming from a portable device and trigger[] a signal that opens a door when
the portable device is detected to be within an activation area in front of the

3 We do not address Appellant’s other arguments because this issue is
dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373

6
door.” Ans. 22–23. With respect to the purpose of combining the
references, the Examiner further explains:
In addition, Beggs, [0031] discloses the detector antennas
can utilize any type of detectors and techniques in determining
when the portable device is located in the activation area which
indicates obviousness that the detector can potentially utilize a
detector that utilizes angle of arrival or angle of approach
method to detect when the object is within the activation line
area.
And Herman discloses the use of a detector antenna that
utilizes an angle of approach or angle of arrival technique in
determining when the portable device is located in the
activation area and further discloses that the spacing between
detector antennas is variable and dependent upon the
application or embodiment which indicates obviousness that
the detector antennas can potentially be placed in line with
each other at each side of the door that crosses the barrier.
Id. at 23.
Based on our review of the references, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments. As argued by Appellant (Appeal Br. 9–10), the
disclosed operation of the activation line and active detectors in Beggs does
not relate to the claimed access control based on determining that a portable
key device is in the active area. In fact, Beggs places detectors near a
doorway having overlapping detection areas for detecting a body near the
doorway and causing the door to stop or open in response to the activation
line being disturbed. See Beggs ¶¶ 7, 12, 16. Beggs describes the
“activation line” as “any line in space that when sufficiently disturbed
creates a response in a detector associated with the line,” which in turn,
causes the door to stop or open. Beggs ¶ 31. Therefore, Beggs, at best,
discloses detectors that have a specific coverage area for stopping or closing
Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373

7
a door when the detectors detect an object or person in that area based on a
disturbed detection signal. However, Beggs provides no teaching that the
detectors receive a signal from a portable key device and provide any access
control based on both detecting the portable key device and determining that
the key device in in a specific area (active area).
With respect to modifying Beggs with Herman, we are also persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments. As argued by Appellant (Appeal Br. 14),
Herman’s detection of the angle of arrival is used to safely open or close a
door for persons with disabilities as they approach the door from a
predefined direction. See Herman ¶ 4. As further argued by Appellant,
Herman’s detection system detects an approaching person from a specific
angle with no regard for which side of the barrier the person is. See Appeal
Br. 15. Therefore, Herman’s detectors do not distinguish an active area
outside of the barrier, as claimed, or any specific or distinct area within the
area covered by the detectors.
We also agree with Appellant (see Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 6) that
even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Herman’s detection
of the angle of arrival to the detection system of Beggs, the combination
would not result in the claimed access control method. Both Herman’s angle
of arrival, that is for safely opening a door for a person with disability, and
the detection system of Beggs, that stops or closes a door if a person is
detected in the doorway, operate without any concern for access control
based on the location of the active area with respect to the barrier and
whether the portable key device is determined to be in that area. As a result,
the Examiner’s proposed modification to add Herman’s method of detecting
the angle of arrival to the detection system of Beggs would not result in the
Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373

8
recited features of claim 1 because the combination is not based on any
reference teaching and the Examiner’s findings are unsupported by the cited
portions of Beggs and Herman. See Ans. 18.
In view of the above analysis, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions that modifying Beggs with Herman, even if properly combined,
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Therefore, on the record
before us, we are constrained to conclude the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, as well as independent claim 7 and 12 that recite similar limitations,
as obvious.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 12, nor of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
11, and 13, dependent therefrom, over Beggs and Herman. The Examiner
has not relied upon the other applied references to teach or suggest the
above-identified limitation in rejecting claims 3, 6, and 9. See Final Act.
30–35. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those stated above for
independent claims 1, 7, and 12, we do not sustain the rejection of the
remaining claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 10–13
103 Beggs, Herman 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 10–13
3, 9 103 Beggs, Herman,
McIntyre
3, 9
Appeal 2021-000628
Application 15/561,373

9
6 103 Beggs, Herman,
Choi
6
Overall
Outcome
1–13

REVERSED