Sensormatic Electronics, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2021

2020004214 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 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.
14/988,472 01/05/2016 Jason M. Ouellette 0270.0077US1/
S-ACV00030US
1073
103122 7590 08/26/2021
HoustonHogle LLP
Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP
1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12
Lexington, MA 02420
EXAMINER
SAVENKOV, VADIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2021 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):
docketing@houstonllp.com
gerald.bluhm@jci.com
grant.houston@houstonllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON M. OUELLETTE

Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
Technology Center 2400

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23–26. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Jan. 5, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed May 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Feb. 4, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 19, 2020 (“Ans.”); and
Reply Brief, filed May 19, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “[A]pplicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Sensormatic Electronics, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
credentialing system for granting user-requested access to a building entry
point/door when the user’s block chain-stored identity has been sufficiently
validated for the given door. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 9. Figure 1, reproduced below, is
useful for understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 above illustrates a credentialing system including identity sources
(200), each storing in credential ledger (212) transactional user data records
(204) encrypted in respective block chain node (210). Id. ¶ 20. Upon
Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
3
assessing the trust levels pertaining to a user’s transactions with trusted
entities (e.g., Department of Defense, banks, passport office, Department of
Motor Vehicles), identity score engine (126) generates an identity score
rating the strength of the user’s ID, which is stored in identity wallets (132)
within user device (130). Id. ¶¶ 28–31. Upon receiving a user’s access
request from access control readers (158) located at building doors, identity
broker (110) grants the requested user access if the user’s ID score meets or
exceeds the door minimum access score. Id. ¶¶ 25, 26, 33.
Independent claim 23 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
23. A credentialing system, comprising:
an identity source storing identity attributes for users as a
credential ledger in the form of a block chain that is a
continuously growing list of transactional data records that are
encrypted and stored on node computer systems;
an identity score engine for generating an identity score
for each of the users that rates the strength of the identity of the
users embodied by the identity attributes stored in the identity
source for each of the users, wherein the identity score is
created through transactions with entities including a registry
of motor vehicles, a passport office, a Department of Defense,
banks, and insurance companies and associated trust levels for
the entities;
mobile computing devices of the users storing identity
wallets for the users that enable access to the identity attributes
in the identity source;
access control systems including access control readers
located at doors of buildings for obtaining credential
information from the identity wallets of the mobile computing
devices and unlocking the doors, wherein the credential
information is used to access the identity source and wherein
each of the doors have minimum identity score requirements
defined for each of the doors; and
identity brokers for accessing the identity source on
behalf of the access control systems of organizations using the
credential information, the identity brokers blocking access to
Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
4
users that have inadequate identity scores with respect to the
minimum identity score requirements of the doors, wherein the
identity brokers use the credential information as a look up into
a credential to identity source map that is maintained by the
identity brokers, the credential to identity source map mapping
the credential information to the identity attributes stored in the
identity source.

Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3
Name Reference Date
Feeney US 2016/0162897 A1 June 9, 2016
Androulaki US 2017/0155515 A1 June 1, 2017
Costa Faidella
(“Costa”)
US 2017/0177855 A1 June 22, 2017
Ashley US 9,703,986 B1 July 11, 2017
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 23–26 as follows:
Claims 23, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Costa, Ashley, Feeney, and
Androulaki. Final Act. 8–10.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Costa, Ashley, Feeney, Androulaki, and Official
Notice. Id. at 10.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
5
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4–13 and the Reply Brief, pages 1–4.4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief.5 Final Act. 2–11; Ans. 3–10. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Costa, Ashley, Feeney, and Androulaki renders claim 23
unpatentable. Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues that none of the
cited references teaches or suggests scoring identity attributes based on a
user’s transactions with trusted entities to create a user ID score stored in
block chain, and blocking access to users that have inadequate ID scores that
do not meet the minimum ID score required by a door, as recited in
independent claim 23. Id. at 6–8. According to Appellant, Feeney’s
disclosure of rating users’ trustworthiness scores in crypto currency
transactions are not created based on a user’s transactions with trusted

4 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) (2019).
5 See ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to
incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560,
1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did
not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal
conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings).

Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
6
entities, nor are they used to determine if users should be granted access to a
particular door. Id. (citing Feeney ¶¶ 6, 69–71, 73). Likewise, Appellant
argues that there is insufficient motivation to combine the financial systems
taught by Feeney and Androulaki with Costa’s disclosure of using block
chain application to provide identity services to a user. Id. at 9.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error
because they are tantamount to an individual attack against Costa, Ashley,
and Feeney, as opposed to the proposed combination thereof as relied upon
by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 23. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking the references or the embodiments thereof
individually where the rejections are based on the combined teachings of the
references and/or embodiments. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981).
The Examiner relies upon Costa for its teaching of “block chain
mediated access control” for facility access control including block chain
data verification for blocking access to users whose block chain metadata is
inadequate. Final Act. 8 (citing Costa ¶¶ 53, 54), Ans. 4–7 (citing Costa
¶¶ 112, 130, 131.) In particular, Costa discloses a federated ID approach for
creating a user ID based on user transactions with trusted entities (e.g., social
security, passport, DMV) stored in block chain to thereby determine whether
the user should be granted access to a facility. Costa ¶¶ 36, 85, 112, 130,
131. Further, the Examiner relies upon Feeney for its teaching of using block
chain information in users’ cryptocurrency transactions to calculate users’
trustworthiness scores in assessing the users’ right levels to access
physically locked boxes or doors to vehicles or buildings. Ans. 5–7 (citing
Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
7
Feeney ¶¶ 6, 7, 33, 35, 37, 43, 61, 68–71, 73, 75, 76).6 Furthermore, the
Examiner relies upon Ashley for its teaching of a reputation registry for
storing synthetic ID and reputation scores generated by a reputation scoring
algorithm. Id. at 5, 7 (citing Ashley 2:65–3:30, 4:14–22, 51–61).
Additionally, the Examiner relies upon Androulaki for its teaching of
mapping ID providers with users and credentials. Id. at 8–9. We find the
Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings of Costa, Ashley,
Feeney, and Androulaki is no more than a simple arrangement of old
elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform, yielding no more than what one would expect from such an
arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled
artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would
have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces
of a puzzle to predictably result in a credentialing system that obtains from
block chain nodes a reputation score based on a user’s transactions with
trusted entities to determine whether to grant requested access to the user to
an entry point of a building depending on whether the score meets or
exceeds the minimum score requirement thereof. Id. at 420–21.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner’s proposed reason to combine the teachings of Costa, Ashley,

6 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller,
642 F.2d at 425. “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by [the]
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of . . . the explicit content of issued
patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
8
Feeney, and Androulaki is insufficient, thereby rendering the proposed
combination improper. The U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
The Court further instructs that:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed
by the patent at issue.
Id. at 418. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited by KSR,
550 U.S. at 418). However, the Court also instructs that “the analysis need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418.
In addition, the Court instructs, “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417.
This precedent controls, and the application of the cited legal
principles to the facts of this appeal provide us with the necessary guidance
in affirming this obviousness rejection. As noted above, the Examiner relies
upon Costa to teach determining if a user ID obtained from a block chain
Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
9
node meets or exceeds a minimum threshold to be granted access to a
building. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that, at the time of the
claimed subject matter, combining Feeney’s teachings of trustworthiness
scores with those of Costa to achieve the claimed device would have been
obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan because it would have yielded a
more effective way of controlling access requests to building entry points.
Ans. 8, Final Act. 9. We agree with the Examiner that the proposed
combination of the teachings of Costa, Ashley, Feeney, and Androulaki is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the ensuing conclusion of
obviousness is consistent with controlling authorities. Ans. 8.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Ans. 5. Consequently,
we are satisfied that, on this record, the Examiner has established that the
combination of Costa, Ashley, Feeney, and Androulaki teaches or suggests
the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner
error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 as unpatentable over
the combination of Costa, Ashley, Feeney, and Androulaki.
Regarding the rejections of claims 24–26, Appellant either does not
present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same
arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 23. As
such, claims 24–26 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-004214
Application 14/988,472
10
VI. CONCLUSION
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 23–26.

VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
23, 24, 26 103 Costa, Ashley,
Feeney,
Androulaki
23, 24, 26
25 103 Costa, Ashley,
Feeney,
Androulaki,
Official Notice
25
Overall
Outcome
23–26

VIII. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED