Siemens Industry, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2021

2019005752 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
14/865,914 09/25/2015 Robert Hafernik 2015P19384US 6315
28524 7590 03/01/2021
SIEMENS CORPORATION
IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244
3850 Quadrangle Blvd
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
SCHMIDT, KARI L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2021 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT HAFERNIK

Appeal 2019-005752
Application 14/865,914
Technology Center 2400

Before, JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS,
and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20, all of the claims
pending.2 Appeal Br. 1. Claims 2, 9 and 16 have been canceled. Claims
App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Sep. 25, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed May 10, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Apr. 16, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 4, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Jul. 25, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Siemens Industry, Inc. as the real party-in-interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005752
Application 14/865,914

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to location-
based credentialing system (100) wherein credentialing server (110)
determines whether to grant mobile device (140) requested access
temporarily to resources in target system (122) at site (120) to perform
certain tasks according to a determined access level and for the time period
specified in the request. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 12, Fig. 1.
Figure 1, reproduced and discussed below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 above illustrates credentialing system (100) including credentialing
server (110) for granting mobile device (140) requested access to automation
system (122) at target site (120). Spec. ¶ 14.
Appeal 2019-005752
Application 14/865,914

3

As depicted in Figure 1 above, upon receiving from mobile device
(140) a location-based credential request to access target system (122) at site
(120), credentialing server (110) utilizes the site ID, the target system ID, the
access level and the valid access period required by target system (122) to
generate a site code, which it stores before transmitting the generated site
code to mobile device (140). Spec. ¶¶ 34–36. Upon subsequently receiving
from mobile device (140) an access code along with the current location of
the mobile device, credentialing system (110) grants the requested access to
the mobile device when the stored site code matches the access code, and the
site location matches the mobile device location. Id. ¶¶ 27–29, 40–44.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A method performed by a credentialing system,
comprising:
receiving, by the credentialing system, a request for a location-
based credential for access to a target system at a target site, wherein
the request includes an identification of the target system, an
identification of the target site, a level of access required on the target
system, and the valid access period;
in response to the request, generating and storing a site code by
the credentialing system, the site code associated with the target
system, the level of access, and the valid access period;
transmitting the site code to a user;
thereafter receiving, by the credentialing system, an access code
and a device location from a mobile device, wherein the device
location indicates the current geographic location of the mobile
device;
comparing the received access code to the stored site code;
when the received access code matches the stored site code:
determining whether the device location corresponds to a site
location of the target site, and determining whether the access code is
received during the valid access period associated with the site code;
Appeal 2019-005752
Application 14/865,914

4
and when the received access code matches the stored site code, the
device location corresponds to the site location, and the access code is
received during the valid access period, then granting access for the
mobile device to access the target system and perform tasks according
to the level of access.

Claims App. (Emphasis added).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Herwig US 2011/10106708 A1 May 5, 2011
Ruckart US 2014/0292479 A1 Oct. 2, 2014
IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the combination of Ruckart and
Herwig. Final Act. 6–12.
ANALYSIS
First, Appellant argues that the combination of Ruckart and Herwig does
not teach or suggest the credentialing system generating a “site code
associated with the target system, the level of access, and the valid access
period” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. at 17–20. In particular, Appellant
argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Ruckart’s disclosure of an
access code (e.g., a PIN) teaches the claimed site code. Id. at 20–21 (citing
Ruckart ¶¶ 48, 56–58). According to Appellant, Ruckart’s access code does
not meet the requirements of a site code including being associated with the

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005752
Application 14/865,914

5
target system, the level of access, and the valid access period. Id. at 22.
Further, Appellant argues that Herwig’s disclosure of a temporary access
credential based on the customer ID, and tied to terminating actions does not
cure the noted deficiencies of Ruckart. Id. at 22–23 (citing Herwig ¶¶ 14,
28, 34, 35, 49, 52). Second Appellant argues that neither Ruckart nor
Herwig teaches determining whether the access code is received during the
valid access period associated with the site code. Appeal Br. 24. In
particular, Appellant argues that because the proposed combination does not
teach a site code, there cannot be any valid period associated therewith. Id.
at 25. Furthermore, Appellant argues that Herwig’s disclosure of “hours of
operation”, relied upon by the Examiner, is not associated with the site code
to determine whether to grant access. Id. (citing Herwwig ¶ 52). Rather it
pertains to hours of operation after access has been granted. Id. at 26.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Ruckart discloses, upon receiving a request from a user terminal at a
subscribed location authentication information including an access code (e.g.
a PIN) or biometric data, an access authorization server compares the
received access code with stored access data to determine whether the user
should be granted access. Ruckart ¶¶ 30–32, 35, 48. According to Ruckart,
upon determining that the entered access code matches the stored data for a
particular location, the access authentication server grants the user access to
the building. Id. ¶¶ 56. Further, Herwig discloses a system for providing
temporary access credentials to a user to access select resources of a facility
or enterprise upon successful authentication. Abstr. In particular, Herwig
discloses a network access service (NAS) that customizes temporary
network access credentials for a mobile device based on the ID of the mobile
Appeal 2019-005752
Application 14/865,914

6
device user for whom the NAS sets access rights to select resources
accordingly. Herwig ¶¶ 34, 35, 49.
As a preliminary matter, we note Appellant’s Specification states the
following:
Disclosed embodiments can instead use a “site code” in place of or
in addition to conventional usual usernames and passwords.
According to disclosed embodiments, the site code can be specific to
the particular site to which the user needs access, such as using
“geofencing” techniques that are specific to the physical location of
the site such as by latitude and longitude or other location
information. The site code can also be specific to the length of time
for which access is needed (the “valid access period”) and the level
of permissions granted to the user to do perform their tasks (the
“permissions”).
When the site code is entered by the user, for example in to the
mobile device 140, the credentialing server 110 grants access to the
mobile device 140 only for the single site (the “target system” at the
“target site”) for which the credential was generated, only for a
specified time period, and only if the user is physically located near
the site. The user’s permission level restricted to only those included
in the credential.

Spec. ¶¶ 25, 26 (emphasis added).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Appellant’s
Specification, we construe “site code” to mean an access code generated to
provide a user restricted access to a site for a specific time period for which
access is needed. As noted above, Ruckart discloses using an access code
(e.g. a PIN) and location data to authenticate and grant a user requested
access to a building. Herwig discloses a NAS customizing for a user
temporary access credentials associated with the user’s ID and access rights
level to access resources in a system at a particular location. We find the
proposed combination of Ruckart and Herwig teaches or suggests at best,
Appeal 2019-005752
Application 14/865,914

7
customizing for the user (requesting access to a target system at a particular
site) a temporary access code along with an access level associated with the
target system. Although the temporary nature of the customized access code
indicates that the code is valid to enable the user’s access to the site for a
period of time, the record before us does not adequately support the finding
that the Ruckart-Herwig combination determines whether the access code is
received during the valid time period for which access is needed. In
particular, we do not agree with the Examiner that Herwig’s disclosure
allowing the user to access resources such as operating hours teaches that the
access code is received during the valid access period associated with the
site code. Ans. 4–5 (citing Herwig ¶ 52). As persuasively argued by
Appellant, Herwig’s hours of operations relate to resources that the user may
be able to access after authentication, and are therefore not related to the site
code needed during authentication. Reply Br. 16.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, each
of which includes the argued disputed limitations. Likewise, we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–20, which also
recite the disputed limitations.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20.

Appeal 2019-005752
Application 14/865,914

8
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8, 10–15,
17–20 103 Ruckart, Herwig
1, 3–8, 10–15,
17–20

REVERSED