Unify GmbH & Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

14569816 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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.
14/569,816 12/15/2014 Karl Klug 2013P00045US-880 1010
88087 7590 03/03/2020
Fritzsche Patent
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN)
P. O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
AVERY, JEREMIAH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 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 KARL KLUG and JURGEN TOTZKE
Appeal 2018-005691
Application 14/569,816
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-005691
Application 14/569,816
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 10–29. Appeal Br. 12.2 An oral hearing was
conducted on February 12, 2020. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to mobile-device security. Spec. 1.
In particular, the invention allows a user to configure a device’s security
level. See, e.g., id. at 25. The device’s applications have a minimum
application security (MAS). Id. at 16. The MAS is the security level required
to activate an application on the device. Id.
For instance, when the user starts an application, the system compares
the application’s MAS with the mobile device’s security level. Id. at 26. If
the MAS conforms to the device’s security level, the application starts. Id.
Otherwise, the system keeps the application inactive and offers the user a
conforming security level for the device. Id. According to the Specification,
the system allows for situational security and raises the user’s awareness
about the device’s security. Id. at 27.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, “The real party in interest is Unify GmbH
& Co. KG, which was formerly known as Siemens Enterprise
Communications GmbH & Co. KG.” Appeal Br. 1.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final”),
mailed June 15, 2017; the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed October 19,
2017; the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed May 2, 2018; and the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 15, 2018.
Appeal 2018-005691
Application 14/569,816
3
Claims 10, 24, and 29 are independent. Claim 10 is reproduced below.
10. A method for the handling of security settings of a mobile
end device comprising:
determining, by a mobile end device, a minimum
application security level required for running a first application
prior to activating the first application to run the first application,
the mobile end device having a processor and non-transitory
memory;
in response to determining that the first application is
intended to be run by the mobile end device and that a security
level of the mobile end device is below the minimum application
security level, emitting output via the mobile end device to
facilitate initiation of a change in the security level at which the
mobile end device is operating to permit the mobile end device
to run the first application;
adjusting the security level at which the mobile end device
is operating from a first security level to a higher second security
level that meets or exceeds the minimum application security
level of the first application in response to receiving input
responsive to the emitted output to actuate the adjusting of the
security level at which the mobile end device is operating; and
activating the first application to run the first application
after the security level of the mobile end device is adjusted from
the first security level to the second security level such that the
first application is kept inactivated and not run while the mobile
end device operates at a security level that is below the minimum
application security level.
Appeal. Br. 32, Claims Appendix.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the prior art listed in the table below.
Name Reference Date
Baentsch US 2011/02388994 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
Blaisdell US 2012/0210443 A1 Aug. 16, 2012
Dumont US 9,286,482 B1 Mar. 15, 2016

Appeal 2018-005691
Application 14/569,816
4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 10–20 and 22–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Blaisdell and Dumont. Final 7–20.
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Blaisdell, Dumont, and Baentsch. Final 20–21.
OPINION
Claim 10
As noted above, claim 10 recites, in part,
in response to determining that the first application is
intended to be run by the mobile end device and that a security
level of the mobile end device is below the minimum application
security level, emitting output via the mobile end device to
facilitate initiation of a change in the security level at which the
mobile end device is operating to permit the mobile end device
to run the first application.
Appeal. Br. 32, Claims Appendix (emphasis added).
The Rejection of Claim 10
In the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds that Dumont emits an
output in response to a determination that a first application “is intended to
be run.” Final 8–9. In the Examiner’s view, the recited phrase “is intended to
be run” is an intended use. Ans. 4; Final 9. As for the recited emitted output,
the Examiner finds that Dumont sends a notification when the system detects
an unknown user. Ans. 6.
Appellant’s Argument
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is based on an
incorrect interpretation of the phrase “is intended to be run.” Appeal Br. 16–
17; Reply Br. 3–4, 8. According to Appellant, the phrase “is intended to be
run” is not an intended use. Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant argues that, under
Appeal 2018-005691
Application 14/569,816
5
the correct interpretation, claim 10 requires a determination about an
application that causes an emitted output, which Dumont lacks. Id. at 16–17,
23–24; Reply Br. 8. According to Appellant, Dumont protects the primary
user’s information from an unknown user. Appeal Br. 23–24. And, in
Appellant’s view, Dumont would not output the primary user’s security
settings to the unknown user. Id. at 24.
Issue
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Dumont teaches
or suggests emitting the recited output “in response to determining that the
first application is intended to be run by the mobile end device and” that the
device’s security level is below the MAS, as recited in claim 10?
Analysis
For the reasons below, we determine that the Examiner erred.
In claim 10, the phrase “is intended to be run” limits the recited
“determining” step. In particular, the claimed method determines whether
the first application is intended to be run. And in response to this
determination, the method emits an output. So the phrase “is intended to be
run” also limits when the output is emitted.
Under this interpretation of claim 10, the rejection does not
adequately address how Dumont teaches or suggests emitting an output in
response to the recited determination. Specifically, Dumont’s recognition
module 102 detects the current user’s identity. Dumont 5:17–21. In doing so,
recognition module 102 outputs a probability that the current user is the
primary user or another known or unknown user. Id. That is, Dumont’s
recognition module 102 makes a determination about the user, not about an
application, as required by claim 10. See id. Thus, the Examiner has not
Appeal 2018-005691
Application 14/569,816
6
shown that Dumont teaches or suggests emitting an output in response to the
recited determination.
Nor has the Examiner shown that it would have been obvious to
modify Blaisdell with Dumont to obtain the recited determination and
associated output steps. For the other limitations, the Examiner cites
Blaisdell’s application-security process. See Final 7–10. Like Blaisdell, the
claimed output helps secure the device from applications. But Blaisdell lacks
the recited determination and associated output—specifically, an output that
allows “a change in the security level at which the mobile end device is
operating to permit the mobile end device to run the first application.”
Id. at 8.
Dumont’s system would not have remedied this deficiency. Rather,
Dumont has a different purpose: protecting the primary user’s data from
other users. Dumont 5:26–40. For example, Dumont’s notification may
cause the security module 104 to hide the primary user’s data and
applications. Id. Showing the primary user’s security settings to an unknown
user would defeat Dumont’s data-protection scheme. Accord Appeal Br. 24.
Thus, the Examiner has not shown how Dumont would have supplied the
determination and associated output missing from Blaisdell.
Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Dumont, alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests emitting the output in response to the
determination recited in claim 10. See Final 7–10. So we do not sustain
claim 10’s rejection.
The Remaining Claims Rejected as Obvious over Blaisdell and Dumont
Independent claims 24 and 29 recite determinations similar to those in
claim 10. The Examiner rejects claims 24 and 29 under the same rationale as
Appeal 2018-005691
Application 14/569,816
7
claim 1. See Final 7–8. So for the same reasons, we also do not sustain the
rejections of claims 24 and 29.
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims
11–20, 22, 23, and 25–28, which depend from claims 10, 24, and 29.
The Obviousness Rejection over Blaisdell, Dumont, and Baentsch
We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 21.
Specifically, the Examiner did not rely on Baentsch to teach the features
missing from Dumont. See Final 20–21. Thus, the Examiner has not shown
that Baentsch cures the deficiency in the Blaisdell-Dumont combination. See
id. So the Examiner erred for the same reasons discussed for claim 10’s
rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10–29 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–20, 22–
29
103 Blaisdell, Dumont 10–20, 22–
29
21 103 Blaisdell, Dumont,
Baentsch
21
Overall
Outcome
10–29

REVERSED