IDENTITY SYSTEMS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2020004078 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
14/724,255 05/28/2015 Patrick Terry ANDERSON 111841.00003 1150
32294 7590 09/14/2021
SQUIRE PB (DC Office)
ATTN: IP Department
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
EXAMINER
PATEL, SHIVANG I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2021 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):
IP-Squire@SquirePB.com
sonia.whitney@squirepb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PATRICK TERRY ANDERSON, JUDITH ANNE ANDERSON,
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL JOHNSON,
and
RONALD ANTHONY KUPPINGER
____________________

Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 8, 10, 12–14, 17, and 19–21.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Identity Systems, Inc. (Appeal
Br. 2–3.)
2 Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 were canceled. (Final Act. 1.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 28, 2015,
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 29, 2019, Appeal Brief
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a digital identification badge and a method
of making and using such a badge. (Spec. ¶¶ 7, 12; Title; Abstract.) The
badge includes a microprocessor, a memory, and a display, the
microprocessor and memory being configured to control the badge “to
receive content from a network device, receive at least one rule used by the
microprocessor to determine when the content is displayed, and display the
received content on the display according to the at least one rule.”
(Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A digital identification badge, comprising:
a microprocessor;
a memory; and
a display;
wherein the digital identification badge is provisioned
with an initial configuration comprising at least a unique device
identifier and device firmware update,
after the digital identification badge is successfully
provisioned, the digital identification badge is activated at a
client location according to a store location code and assigned
to the client location associated with the store location code,
and
after the badge is successfully activated, the
microprocessor and the memory are configured to control the
digital identification badge to
receive fixed and real-time content from a network
device, wherein the real-time content presents new information

(“Appeal Br.”) filed March 2, 2020, Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
April 8, 2020, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 11, 2020.
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

3
that changes depending on a time of day, depending on an
occurrence of one or more specific events, and depending on a
location of the digital identification badge;
receive at least one rule used by the microprocessor to
determine at least when the received content is displayed,
wherein the at least one rule further comprises rules or events
defined for a time, date, and place on the digital identification
badge that the received content is displayed on the display or
removed from the display of the digital identification badge;
and
apply the at least one rule to determine at least the time,
the date, and the place to display the received content on the
display, wherein the received content comprises the real-time
content; and
display the received content according to the at least one
rule,
wherein the digital identification badge further comprises
at least one sensor configured to create data comprising a
current location and movement patterns of the digital
identification badge and comprising temperature information,
and
wherein the digital identification badge is configured to
transmit the data including the current location, the movement
patterns, and the temperature, to the network device in near
real-time or the memory is configured to store the data for
transmission to the network device at a pre-determined time.
(Appeal Br. 40–46 (Claims App.).)

REJECTION & REFERENCES
Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 10, 12–14, 17, and 19–21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Mooney et al. (US 2007/0013610 A1, published
January 18, 2007) (“Mooney”), Switzer et al. (US 2015/0006870 A1,
published January 1, 2015) (“Switzer”), and Hilerio (US 2004/0176131 A1,
published September 9, 2004) (“Hilerio”). (Final Act. 3–18.)
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

4

ANALYSIS
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Independent claim 1 recites a digital identification badge, and
independent claim 10 recites a method for configuring and using the badge.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mooney,
Switzer, and Hilerio teaches the limitations of these claims. (Appeal Br. 10–
28; Reply Br. 3–9.) For example, with respect to claim 1, Appellant argues
Mooney and Hilerio “do[] not disclose or suggest both a provisioning
according to a unique device identifier and a subsequent activation at a client
location according to a store location code.” (Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4.)
According to Appellant, (i) “Hilerio is silent as to any provisioning of an
initial configuration that includes at least a unique device identifier and
device firmware update” and “fails to disclose or suggest any element that
corresponds to the claimed activating,” and (ii) “Mooney and Switzer do not
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

5
disclose provisioning the badge with a unique device identifier” and
“activating the badge at a client location according to a different identifier or
code (store location code), and also assigning the badge to the client location
that is associated with the store location code.” (Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply
Br. 5–6.) Appellant submits similar arguments with respect to the
“provisioning” and “activating” steps recited in claim 10. (See Appeal Br.
21–24; Reply Br. 3.) Appellant also argues Mooney, Switzer, and Hilerio do
not teach or suggest
[claim 1’s] digital badge . . . configured to receive both fixed and
real-time data that changes based on the time of day, based on
the occurrence of event(s) and based on the location of the badge,
and . . . receive and apply rules for the time, date and place that
the real-time content is displayed on the digital badge.

(Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 6–8.) Finally, Appellant argues Mooney, Switzer,
and Hilerio do not teach or suggest
[claim 1’s digital identification badge] sensor configured to
create data comprising a current location and movement patterns
of the digital identification badge and comprising temperature
information, and wherein the digital identification badge is
configured to transmit the data including the current location, the
movement patterns, and the temperature, to the network device
in near real-time or the memory is configured to store the data
for transmission to the network device at a pre-determined time.

(Appeal Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 8–9.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and agree with the
Examiner that the asserted combination of Mooney, Switzer, and Hilerio
teaches or suggests the digital identification badge recited in claim 1, and the
steps recited in claim 10. (See Final Act. 3–13; Ans. 4–8.) For example,
with respect to claim 1 (which requires a badge provisioned with an initial
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

6
configuration of a unique device identifier and device firmware update), we
agree with the Examiner that (i) Mooney teaches a badge provisioned with a
unique device identifier (see Mooney’s Fig. 1, showing badges provisioned
with unique badge IDs of #3061, #1007, and #2071), and (ii) Hilerio teaches
a badge provisioned with a device firmware update (see Hilerio’s Fig. 3,
showing a badge provisioned with an operating system 314 in a memory
302). (Final Act. 4, 7 (citing Mooney ¶¶ 28, 31, Fig. 1; Hilerio ¶ 32); Ans.
4–5; see Mooney ¶ 28 (providing that a wireless electronic badge has a
“badge ID”); Hilerio ¶ 32 (providing that “memory 302 [of an identification
badge 104] comprises various programs (in software and/or firmware)
including a rudimentary operating system 314 that controls badge operation”
(emphasis added)), Fig. 3 (illustrating the identification badge).)
In view of the teachings of Mooney and Hilerio, we also agree with
the Examiner that it was known to one skilled in the art of electronic badges
to provision a digital badge with a unique device identifier and a device
firmware update (as required by method claim 10). (Final Act. 4, 7; Ans. 4–
5.) For example, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Hilerio’s
badge was previously provisioned with a firmware update, because the
badge’s memory stores “programs (in software and/or firmware) including a
rudimentary operating system 314 that controls badge operation, and a badge
organizer application 316.” (See Hilerio ¶ 32; Ans. 4–5.) Appellant’s
argument that “Hilerio is silent as to any provisioning” that includes a
“device firmware update” (see Appeal Br. 13) does not sufficiently explain
why the claimed “device firmware update” would be dissimilar from
Hilerio’s badge firmware.
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

7
Appellant also argues, “[e]ven if Mooney discloses a badge ID,
Mooney does not disclose or suggest that its badge ID is a unique device ID
that is provisioned to the digital identification badge as part of an initial
configuration.” (Reply Br. 5.) This argument, again, does not sufficiently
explain why the claimed “unique device identifier” would be dissimilar from
Mooney’s “badge ID.” (See Mooney ¶ 28.) Claims 1 and 10 also do not
specify details of the claimed “initial configuration.” Thus, it is not clear
from Appellant’s argument why making badges marked by unique IDs (e.g.,
the badges marked as #3061, #1007, and #2071 in Mooney’s Fig. 1) would
not involve the provisioning of “an initial configuration comprising . . . a
unique device identifier” (as claimed).
Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error with respect to the
claimed “provisioned” badge of claim 1 and “provisioning” step of claim 10.
Appellant further argues, with respect to the “activated” badge in
claim 1 and “activating” step in claim 10, that Mooney does not teach or
suggest “activating the badge at a client location according to a different
identifier or code (store location code), and also assigning the badge to the
client location that is associated with the store location code.” (Appeal Br.
14; Reply Br. 6.) Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for the following
reasons. Initially, we note the claimed “store location code” is a broad term.
Claims 1 and 10 do not specify any details of the “store location code.” For
example, claims 1 and 10 do not require the “store location code” to be
different from the earlier claimed “unique device identifier,” as Appellant
argues. (See Appeal Br. 14 (arguing the activation is “according to a
different identifier or code (store location code)”).) Because the claimed
“store location code” is broad and non-specific, we agree with the Examiner
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

8
the “store location code” reads on Mooney’s user code. (Final Act. 4, 9
(citing Mooney ¶¶ 33, 44, 46).) In particular, Mooney discloses a wireless
electronic badge is configured with one or more user code(s), whereby
the user code in each electronic wireless badge 100 may be
changed or added to by an authorized network security
administrator either by direct connection (e.g., serial connection)
to the information exchange module 204 [of the badge], or
through a password protected mechanism of communication
from the network security station 150 [of a secured facility]. An
electronic wireless badge 100 may have more than one user code
208, e.g., one for each facility with which the electronic wireless
badge 100 communicates.

(Mooney ¶¶ 22, 33 (emphases added).) Mooney’s user code is specific to a
secured facility (store location), and enables the badge’s owner to enter that
facility. (See Mooney ¶¶ 19, 22, 31, 34, 59.) Because Mooney’s badge
provides access to the secured facility by virtue of having the facility-
assigned user code, we agree with the Examiner that Mooney teaches or at
least suggests the badge is assigned to a client location (the secured facility)
associated with the store location code (Mooney’s facility-specific user
code), as required by claim 1 (and similarly by claim 10). (Final Act. 4, 9.)
And with respect to “activating the digital identification badge at a client
location according to a store location code” recited in claim 10, we agree
with the Examiner that Mooney teaches or at least suggests the limitation.
(Final Act. 4, 9.) As discussed supra, Mooney provides that “the user code
in each electronic wireless badge 100 may be changed or added to . . .
through a password protected mechanism of communication from the
network security station 150 [of the secured facility],” which effectively
activates the badge for use at that client location (the secured facility
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

9
housing network security station 150) according to a store location code
(Mooney’s facility-specific user code). (See Mooney ¶ 33; Final Act. 4, 9.)
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Mooney,
Switzer, and Hilerio do not teach or suggest a digital badge that receives (i)
“fixed and real-time content . . . that changes depending on a time of day,
depending on an occurrence of one or more specific events, and depending
on a location of the digital identification badge” and (ii) “rules or events
defined for a time, date, and place on the digital identification badge that the
received content is displayed on the display,” as recited in claim 1. (See
Appeal Br. 15–17; see also Reply Br. 6–8.) Appellant reproduces portions
from Mooney and concludes “Mooney fails to disclose or suggest that its
wireless badge 100 receives real-time content that changes throughout the
day or that rules are applied to determine the time, date and place to display
the real-time content.” (See Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 7.) Appellant’s
argument, however, does not address the Examiner’s specific findings, and
does not sufficiently explain why the Examiner’s cited portions of Mooney
would be deficient. For example, Appellant’s argument does not address the
Examiner’s specific findings that Mooney’s electronic badge receives real-
time content in the form of: “[p]eriodically changing . . . information
displayed by the electronic wireless badge 100 (e.g., every week, every day,
every minute, etc.)”; and “appropriate badge display information [received
‘upon proper authorization . . . from the network security station’ of a
secured facility accessed by the badge’s owner] for display on the badge
display 200.” (See Mooney ¶¶ 34, 50; Final Act. 4 (citing Mooney ¶¶ 34,
45, 50); Ans. 6 (citing Mooney ¶¶ 19, 46, 50).) We agree with the Examiner
this content received by Mooney’s electronic badge is “real-time content
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

10
[that] presents new information that changes depending on a time of day,
depending on an occurrence of one or more specific events, and depending
on a location of the digital identification badge,” as recited in claim 1 (and
similarly, in claim 10). (Final Act. 4, 9–10; Ans. 6.)
Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 15–16 and Reply Br. 6–8) also do
not sufficiently address the Examiner’s specific findings that Mooney’s
electronic badge receives rules and events controlling data display, the rules
and events including: rules for “display[ing] information . . . based on
successful access to a relevant piconet” and controlling “badge display
information . . . [to] be deleted or otherwise disabled” when the badge’s GPS
indicates “the [badge’s] wearer exited the confines of a particular building or
locale”; and events (e.g., badge authorization) causing “the electronic
wireless badge 100 . . . [to] display the proper and relevant ID information
required by the premises upon which the wearer has entered.” (See Mooney
¶¶ 44–46, Figs. 3A–3B (illustrating different display areas for premise-
dependent content on the badge’s display); Final Act. 5 (citing Mooney
¶¶ 34, 40, 44–46); Ans. 6 (citing Mooney ¶¶ 19, 46, 50).) We agree with the
Examiner that Mooney’s badge receives “rules or events defined for a time,
date, and place on the digital identification badge that the received content is
displayed on the display or removed from the display of the digital
identification badge,” as recited in claim 1 (and similarly, in claim 10).
(Final Act. 5, 10; Ans. 6.)
Appellant’s arguments regarding the claimed “sensor” and
transmission or storage of “data including the current location, the
movement patterns, and the temperature” are also unpersuasive as the
arguments do not sufficiently explain why the Examiner’s cited portions in
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

11
Mooney and Switzer would be deficient. (See Appeal Br. 17–19; Reply Br.
8–9.) For example, Appellant asserts “Mooney only discloses that its
wireless badge may have a GPS locating device” but “does not disclose or
suggest that its wireless badge includes sensor(s) configured to create data,
environmental observations, and movement patterns of the digital
identification badge.” (Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 8–9.) Appellant’s
arguments, however, do not sufficiently address the Examiner’s findings that
the GPS and wireless piconet interface of Mooney’s badge track a badge’s
movements with respect to a facility’s location/piconet transceiver by, e.g.,
determining “when the wearer exited the confines of a particular building or
locale”—thereby teaching claim 1’s “sensor configured to create data
comprising a current location and movement patterns of the digital
identification badge.” (See Mooney ¶¶ 34, 39, 44–46, 54; Final Act. 5–6
(citing Mooney ¶¶ 19, 46); Ans. 7–8.) As the Examiner explains, the
claimed “movement patterns of the digital identification badge” reads on the
tracked movements of Mooney’s badge, because the “movement patterns”
are broadly claimed and generically described in Appellant’s Specification.
(Ans. 7.)
Appellant also contends that “Switzer does not disclose or suggest that
its devices are configured to transmit the data, environmental observations,
and movement patterns to a network device in near real-time or to store the
data.” (Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 9.) This argument, however, fails to
sufficiently address the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Switzer (e.g.,
that Switzer teaches the claimed acquisition and transmission of a location
and temperature). (See Final Act. 6 (citing Switzer ¶¶ 41–42); Ans. 8 (citing
Switzer ¶¶ 42, 45).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2020-004078
Application 14/724,255

12
In light of the broad terms recited in claims 1 and 10 and the
arguments presented, Appellant has failed to sufficiently distinguish the
claimed invention over the prior art combination relied on by the Examiner.
Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, and independent
claim 19 reciting limitations similar to claim 10 and argued for the same
reasons. (Appeal Br. 30–38.) We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 3–5, 8, 12–14, 17, 20, and 21, argued for their dependency
on claims 1 and 10. (Appeal Br. 19–20, 29–30.)

DECISION SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 8, 10, 12–14, 17, and 19–
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 8,
10, 12–14,
17, 19–21
103 Mooney, Switzer,
Hilerio
1, 3–5, 8,
10, 12–14,
17, 19–21

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