Carrier CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 14, 20212020004817 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2021) 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. 15/528,820 05/23/2017 Adam Kuenzi 80096US02(14-411-2) 6175 169907 7590 10/14/2021 Bachman & LaPointe, PC (Carrier) 900 Chapel St, Suite 1201 New Haven, CT 06510 EXAMINER PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2419 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADAM KUENZI Appeal 2020-004817 Application 15/528,820 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, PHILLIP A. BENNETT, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 7–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Carrier Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004817 Application 15/528,820 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to an access control system that includes a credential service that generates an encrypted programming credential. Spec., Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An access control system, comprising: a credential service operable to generate an encrypted programming credential; an installer mobile application on a mobile device operable to communicate with the credential service, the installer mobile application operable to receive the encrypted programming credential from the credential service; a credential module for an access control, the credential module operable to extract programming data from the encrypted programming credential, the programming data usable to program the access control; and decrypting and extracting the programming data at the access control, wherein the programming data is identical to a card meta-data physically encoded on a physical key card. REFERENCES The Examiner relied upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Conrad US 2016/0036788 A1 Feb. 4, 2016 Scoggins US 2015/0199863 A1 July 16, 2015 Hanson US 2013/0335193 A1 Dec. 19, 2013 Gerhardt US 2012/0280783 A1 Nov. 8, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–3, 7–14, 16, 17 103 Conrad, Scoggins 4, 15 103 Conrad, Scoggins, Hanson 18, 21 103 Conrad, Scoggins, Gerhardt 20 103 Conrad, Scoggins, Gerhardt, Hanson Appeal 2020-004817 Application 15/528,820 3 ANALYSIS2 Claims 1–3, 7–14, 16, and 17 Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine Conrad and Scoggins as proposed for claims 1–3, 7–14, 16, and 17. Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 1–4. The essence of Appellant’s argument is that Scoggins does not teach decryption of credentials. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, “there is simply no decrypting taking place because Scoggins is directed to only the guest level security to access a guest room.” Id. Then Appellant argues, Appellant thus respectfully submits that there is simply no motivation to combine Scoggins—which is not concerned with decryption and is operable at a different security level—with Conrad as proposed. The only motivation to make this combination is the teachings within Appellant’s invention. This is hindsight. Id. at 10–11. The Examiner finds that Conrad discloses “decrypting” and that Scoggins teaches “programming a mobile device as a key card where the programming data is identical to a card meta-data physically encoded on a physical key card.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Conrad ¶ 56; Scoggins ¶ 43). The Examiner supplies the following rationale to combine Scoggins with Conrad: At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the key card data of Scoggins et al. in the Conrad et al. mobile device. Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary 2 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-004817 Application 15/528,820 4 skill in the art, to do so would have been so that the mobile device key cards can be used with legacy locks. Id. at 5. In the Answer, the Examiner addresses Appellant’s argument as follows: First, the Examiner explains that Conrad was relied upon for decrypting, and Scoggins was relied upon to teach identical data, not decryption. Ans. 3. The Examiner relied on Scoggins to “show the type of data used in the system can be identical to physical key cards.” Id. And “[t]his data is used in addition to or in place of the access key data of the Conrad system which is encrypted and decrypted.” Id. at 4. “As such,” the Examiner finds, “the combination teaches the decryption of data that is identical to that of a physical key card.” Id. The Examiner then further explains the motivation to combine: one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, a benefit to using data that is key card data that is identical to card meta- data physically encoded on a device would be to allow for legacy systems to work with the modern mobile device unlocking of Conrad. . . . Additionally, a substitution or combination of the card meta-data from Scoggins in place of or in addition to the access key of Conrad would result in the predictable result of updating the lock with cloned key-card data usable by either a key card or the mobile device of the combination. Id. Regarding hindsight, the Examiner responds that Scoggins discloses the use of encryption, which implies the use of decryption. Id. (citing Scoggins ¶ 55). Appellant responds that “the Examiner is providing merely a conclusory statement, or alternatively suggesting that there would be a predictable result.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant reiterates that hindsight is the only possible basis for the combination. Id. Appellant also raises a new Appeal 2020-004817 Application 15/528,820 5 argument in Reply—that “both Conrad and Scoggins may focus on how to open a door lock, not how to program the door lock.” Id. at 4. Consequently, Appellant argues, “[t]he proposed combination thus fails to properly disclose or suggest teaching that the server (with ultimate trust) can package a programming credential and encrypt it and send via phone (or card) to the lock such that essentially anyone could deliver the programming credential as described and claimed by Appellant.” Id. Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Appellant appears to make an analogous art argument by contending that “there is simply no motivation to combine Scoggins—which is not concerned with decryption and is operable at a different security level—with Conrad as proposed.” See Appeal Br. 10–11. Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant, at most, suggests that Conrad and Scoggins are from different fields of endeavor but does not analyze whether Scoggins is still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Further, Appellant’s charge of hindsight is also conclusory and unpersuasive. See Appeal Br. 11. Our reviewing court instructs: Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made Appeal 2020-004817 Application 15/528,820 6 and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1394–1395 (CCPA 1971). Nothing in the Examiner’s findings employs improper hindsight here because the Examiner finds supporting evidence in both Scoggins and Conrad. Further, we agree with the Examiner that the use of encryption in Scoggins implies the relevance of Scoggins to Conrad’s decryption processes. See Ans. 4. Not only that, but Appellant’s Specification admits that “[c]onventional hotel locking systems utilize encryption,” which further belies Appellant’s hindsight arguments. Spec. ¶ 5. Appellant’s Reply arguments are likewise unpersuasive. It is not true that the Examiner merely makes conclusory statements. See Reply Br. 2. The Examiner articulates a rationale to combine and supports this rationale with citations to the references. See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–4. And Appellant’s new Reply argument that the references do not teach all the claim limitations is untimely and therefore unpersuasive. Under regulations governing appeals to the Board, a new argument not timely presented in the Appeal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative); 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37, 41.41. Because the record contains no such showing, we will not consider the new argument in the Reply Brief. We, therefore, sustain the rejection, along with the rejection of independent claims 13 and 18, which Appellant does not argue separately, and the dependent claims, which Appellant does not argue separately (apart from those addressed explicitly below). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-004817 Application 15/528,820 7 Claims 4 and 15 For claims 4 and 15, Appellant appears to rely on its arguments for claim 1 but also states: Appellant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the reasons discussed above. Notably, here again, Appellant recites wherein the program data is operable to roll a lock encryption key. This is the higher level encryption aspect as discussed above, and the Examiner herein admits that the primary and secondary references, Conrad in view of Scoggins, fails to disclose or suggest such an encryption key aspect. Appellant thus respectfully submits that this rejection fails as well. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s argument overlooks that the Examiner applies Hanson, and not just Conrad and Scoggins, to these claims. Final Act. 5–6. Therefore, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Claim 20 For claim 20, Appellant merely states: “Again, as discussed above, this is a higher level of encryption and Appellant respectfully submits that the references simply fail to disclose such a level of encryption which obviates the combination of the primary and secondary references discussed above.” This is not an argument on the merits, as it merely paraphrases claim language and asserts that it is not taught by the references. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked Appeal 2020-004817 Application 15/528,820 8 assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellant, therefore, does not persuade us of Examiner error.3 We, therefore, affirm all of the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 7–14, 16, 17 103 Conrad, Scoggins 1–3, 7–14, 16, 17 4, 15 103 Conrad, Scoggins, Hanson 4, 15 18, 21 103 Conrad, Scoggins, Gerhardt 18, 21 20 103 Conrad, Scoggins, Gerhardt, Hanson 20 Overall Outcome 1–4, 7–18, 20, 21 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 3 Appellant even more tersely “traverses [the] rejection” of claims 18 and 21, which is likewise unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 11–12. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation