Unify GmbH & Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2020

15217050 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2020)

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.
15/217,050 07/22/2016 Jurgen Totzke 2012P00177US01-968 3358
88087 7590 03/26/2020
Fritzsche Patent
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN)
P. O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
LAFONTANT, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2020 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JURGEN TOTZKE, JOHANN ZEINER, and MELIH
KUCUKERDONMEZ
____________

Appeal 2018-008414
Application 15/217,050
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14–33. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on March 12,
2020.
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Unify
GmbH & Co. KG. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008414
Application 15/217,050

2

The present invention relates generally to connecting a mobile
communication device to an at least partially wire-based communication
infrastructure. See Spec., Abstract.
Claim 33 is illustrative:
33. A method for connecting a mobile communication device
to a communication infrastructure comprising:
providing a docking station, the docking station
comprising:
a housing,
a cradle connected to the housing for the storage of
the mobile communication device,
a detection device configured to detect a presence
of the mobile communication device when the mobile communication
device is within a selected distance from the detection device, the
detection device configured to detect the presence of the mobile
communication terminal via one of: (i) a Near Field Communication
directly between the mobile communication device and the docking
station and (ii) a radio frequency identification communication
directly between the mobile communication device and the docking
station,
a first interface configured to provide a peer to
peer wireless local area network communication connection directly
between the docking station and the communication device while the
mobile communication device is remote from the communication
infrastructure and is unconnected to the communication infrastructure
a second interface configured to provide a wired
communication link between the mobile communication device and
the communications infrastructure, and
a transfer device configured to switch the peer to
peer wireless local area network communication connection to the
wired communication link such that the mobile communication
device is communicatively connectable to the communication
infrastructure via only the wired communication link, and
at least one of:
(i) an authentication device configured to
receive authentication information from the mobile communication
Appeal 2018-008414
Application 15/217,050

3
device via the radio frequency identification communication or the
Near Field Communication and validate the authentication
information to enable communication between the mobile
communication device and the communication infrastructure;
(ii) a memory device for storing an
authentication key for the authentication information such that the
docking station is configured to authenticate the mobile
communication device via the authentication information and the
authentication key without use of a service hosted by another device
to enable communication between the mobile communication device
and the docking station based on the authentication information;
positioning the mobile communication device in the
cradle;
the docking station receiving a certificate of the mobile
communication terminal via the radio frequency identification
communication or Near Field Communication;
upon a determination that authentication information of
the certificate validates the mobile communication terminal for
communications with the communication infrastructure, switching the
wireless local area network communication link to the wired
communication link via the transfer device such that the mobile
communication device is communicatively connected to the
communication infrastructure via the wired communication link; and
a firewall integrated into the docking station blocking
unwanted software the mobile communication device seeks to
transmit to the communication infrastructure via the docking station
after the mobile communication device is connected to the
communication infrastructure via the second interface.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 14–23 and 26–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Batchelor (US 2008/0252419 A1, Oct. 16, 2008)
and Sindhwani (US 2009/0059907 A1, Mar. 5, 2009);
R2. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batchelor, Sindhwani, and Mai (CN 202050263, Nov. 23,
2011).
Appeal 2018-008414
Application 15/217,050

4
We review the appealed rejections 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).

ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Batchelor teaches or
suggests a firewall integrated into the docking station blocking unwanted
software . . . after the mobile communication device is connected to the
communication infrastructure via the second interface, as set forth in the
claims?
As identified by Appellant, in Batchelor “a docking station is to block
communicative coupling of a communication device 100 when device 100 is
determined to not have a proper validation for access to infrastructure or the
docking station. (Batchelor, at ¶ 23). There is no teaching or suggestion of
any firewall integrated into a docking station that would protect an
infrastructure while a device is connected to that infrastructure.” Appeal Br.
19–20. In other words, Appellant highlights, and we agree, that Batchelor
merely blocks all access from the communication device to the infrastructure
based on a communication device not being authorized to dock to the
docking station, i.e., prior to any wired connection, as opposed to blocking
access after the mobile communication device is connected to the
communication infrastructure via the second interface, i.e., wired
connection, as required by the claims.
Figure 2 of Batchelor “is a flow diagram illustrating an embodiment
of a wireless access control method 20.” Batchelor ¶ 21. Batchelor further
discloses:
Appeal 2018-008414
Application 15/217,050

5

At decision block 210, controller 116 determines whether the
particular computing device 100 is authorized to dock to
docking station 110 (e.g., based on code 102 and/or access level
data 119). If, at decision block 210, controller 116 determines
that code 102 is associated with a particular computing device
100 that is unauthorized to dock to docking station 110,
controller 116 disables and/or otherwise prevents
communicative coupling of the particular computing device 100
to docking station 110. If, at decision block 210, controller 116
determines that code 102 is associated with a particular
computing device 100 that is authorized to dock to docking
station 110, the method proceeds to block 214, where
computing device 100 is communicatively coupled to docking
station 110.
Batchelor ¶ 23.
In other words, Batchelor discloses a method allowing a computing
device to communicate with a docking station, whereby the computing
device wirelessly transmits a code to the docking station and the docking
station analyzes the code to determine if access is authorized. As such,
Batchelor allows wireless connection between the computing device and the
docking station, in order to validate the code received from the computing
device, prior to any communicative coupling to the docking station.
However, we agree with Appellant that Batchelor’s “docking station
110 does not take any further action to block any type of transmission of
data from the communication device 100 after it is found to be authorized
for connection to a resource and is connected to that resource.” Appeal Br.
22. Stated differently, representative Claim 33 requires blocking unwanted
software after the mobile communication device is connected to the
communication infrastructure via the second interface, i.e., after the mobile
device is connected to the communication infrastructure via a wired
Appeal 2018-008414
Application 15/217,050

6
connection. The Examiner fails to direct our attention to any firewall
procedures in Batchelor after Batchelor’s computing device is wired-
connected to the docking station, as required by the claims.
Although we agree with the Examiner that Batchelor’s “docking
station acts as [a] firewall to the network” (Ans. 5), Appellant makes a good
point that “the Examiner read[s] limitations out of the claim . . . a definite
term that specifically limits the configuration of the docking station.”
Appeal Br. 22. Specifically, the Examiner has improperly read out of the
claims after the mobile communication device is connected to the
communication infrastructure via the second interface, i.e., a wired
communication link. Here, the Examiner is merely relying on Batchelor’s
disclosed wireless connection which occurs prior to the computing device
being communicatively coupled to the docking station, instead of any wired
connection, as required by the claims. See Ans. 5; Batchelor ¶¶ 21–23.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Batchelor teaches
the aforementioned argued limitations, as recited in each of the independent
claims. The Examiner also has not found any of the other references of
record teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments. Accordingly, for at least the above-noted reasons, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14–33.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 14–33 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over at least
Batchelor.
Appeal 2018-008414
Application 15/217,050

7

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14–23, 26–33 103(a) Batchelor,
Sindhwani
14–23,
26–33
24, 25 103(a) Batchelor,
Sindhwani, Mai
24, 25
Overall
Outcome
14–33

REVERSED