Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 1, 20212021001813 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 16/378,306 04/08/2019 Matthew E. Last P21481USC1 3995 62579 7590 03/01/2021 APPLE INC./BROWNSTEIN c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 410 Seventeenth Street Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER MCCOY, RICHARD ANTHONY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2431 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): patentdocket@bhfs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHEW E. LAST, GIOVANNI GOZZINI, and HENRY H. YANG Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. Claims 5, 7, 12, 14 and 17 are canceled. See Claims Appx. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “using portable security tokens as identity proxies for access control systems.” Spec. ¶ 2. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Independent claim 8 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 8. An electronic device, comprising: a capacitive interface configured to capacitively couple to a body of a user and receive a modulated signal through the body of the user; a processor configured to: determine whether the modulated signal is deputized as an identity proxy for a biometric of an authorized user of the electronic device, by, querying a database for a set of valid permissions associated with the modulated signal; and determining whether the modulated signal is associated with a valid permission to access a feature of the electronic device; and deny the user access to the feature of the electronic device unless the modulated signal is associated with the valid permission to access the feature, in which case the valid permission indicates the modulated signal has been deputized as an identity proxy for a biometric of an authorized user of the electronic device. Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art: Name Reference Date Bassali US 2011/0043328 A1 Feb. 24, 2011 Scheurich US 2004/0064728 A1 Apr. 1, 2004 Wilson US 2010/0218249 A1 Aug. 26, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims References Final Act. 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 Wilson, Scheurich 2 20 Wilson, Scheurich, Bassali 9 ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Wilson and Scheurich teaches or suggests (1) a “modulated signal” that is “deputized as an identity proxy for a biometric” and (2) “querying a database for a set of valid permissions associated with the modulated signal” and denying access unless there is “a valid permission to access a feature of the electronic device,” as recited in independent claim 8? ANALYSIS Claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, and 13 “deputized as an identity proxy for a biometric” Independent claim 8 recites to “determine whether the modulated signal is deputized as an identity proxy for a biometric.” Appellant argues that “Wilson modulates and transmits a biometric itself, and not a modulated signal that has been deputized as an identity proxy for the biometric.” Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, “[a] proxy Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 4 is defined by Merriam-Webster (online) as ‘1 : the agency, function, or office of a deputy who acts as a substitute for another.’” Id. Appellant further argues that “[n]othing . . . suggests that Scheurich’s security data is a modulated signal, or even that Scheurich’s security data is carried on a modulated signal.” Appeal Br. 9. Although we agree with Appellant that a proxy “acts as a substitute for another,” we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner “does not rely on Wilson alone” or “Scheurich alone” and instead “relies on Wilson combined with Scheurich.” Ans. 5, 6. The first reference Wilson discloses techniques to “enable authentication of a user with a surface computing environment via an authentication object.” Wilson ¶ 22. “[T]he authentication object 106 can be a wearable object such as jewelry (e.g., ring, bracelet, etc.) . . . capable of retaining authentication information 108” and “the authentication information 108 can be information that identifies a user 110.” Id. ¶ 24. For example, “the authentication information can include passwords, user IDs, pass codes, PINs, cryptographic keys (e.g., shared keys, public key/private key pairs, etc.), biometric information and the like.” Id. ¶ 59. This authentication information 108 “can be emitted through a user’s body” by a “radio frequency (RF) signal” from the authentication object 106 to the surface computing equipment 104 “[w]henever user 110 provides touch input to the surface computing equipment 104.” Id. ¶ 28. The second reference Scheurich similarly discloses techniques for “authenticating persons for security purposes (i.e., restricting access by persons to various machines, places or data).” Scheurich ¶ 1. Like Wilson, Scheurich discloses a “security device” that is “somewhat akin to a typical Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 5 wrist watch.” Id. ¶¶ 18, 28, Figs. 1a–2b. Scheurich’s security device “transmits a signal” and “if the signal is from a security device in close proximity to a designated person who should be permitted to have access to computer system 250 . . . , then the software provides the designated person with access to computer system 250.” Id. ¶ 29. Scheurich also discloses that the security device must be activated before usage and explains that activation requires “a biometric reading . . . to determine whether or not the person . . . is a known designated person for whom security device 110 should be activated.” Id. ¶ 20; see also id. ¶ 22 (identifying multiple forms of biometric readings that can be used). The security device can be activated by either (A) providing the security device with “some form of a security key” or (B) “receiving a signal from security device 110, such as an identification code that . . . uniquely identifies security device 110.” Id. ¶ 24. Thus, Wilson teaches a modulated signal transmitted through the user’s body in order to authenticate the user and Scheurich teaches that such authentication information acts as a substitute for biometric information. Ans. 5–7. The combination of Wilson and Scheurich therefore teaches or suggests a “modulated signal is deputized as an identity proxy for a biometric.” “querying a database” & “valid permission” Independent claim 8 further recites “querying a database for a set of valid permissions associated with the modulated signal” and “deny[ing] . . . access to [a] feature of the electronic device unless the modulated signal is associated with [a] valid permission to access the feature.” Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 6 Appellant argues that “nothing in . . . Wilson . . . indicates that a database is queried for a set of permissions” because in Wilson, “a user can perform whatever actions they desire, so long as the surface computing equipment . . . can validate the user’s identity.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds: Wilson discloses database 506 in Fig 5. In [0057], Wilson discloses that database 506 can be utilized to verify authentication information. Combined with the determination step described by Wilson in [0033], one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a query is used in the determination step to compare the authentication information stored in the database 506 with that acquired from authentication object 106 to verify authentication information. Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Wilson discloses “[t]he data store 506 can be utilized to retain user profiles employed to verify authentication information” and “the data store 506 can be . . . a database.” Wilson ¶ 57. With respect to the “query,” beyond conclusory statements that the claim language is not met, Appellant has not adequately explained its challenge to the Examiner’s findings. Wilson expressly discloses using a database, and we agree with the Examiner’s determination that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a “query” is used to access the information in such a database. Wilson ¶ 57; Ans. 7. With respect to “a set of valid permissions” and “a valid permission to access a feature of the electronic device,” Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims as currently written. Nothing in the claim prevents the “set” of valid permissions from having a size of 1 or 0. To the contrary, the claim expressly states to “deny” access if there are no valid permissions for an unauthorized user (e.g., if the “set of valid Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 7 permissions” is a null set). Similarly, nothing in the claim prevents the “feature” from being full access to the electronic device. The embodiments in the Specification are instructive. Though not cited by Appellant, the Specification does disclose “limited permissions” for “limited access” such as when restricting children via “parental controls.” Spec. ¶¶ 78–79. However, the Examiner is also correct that other embodiments disclose merely checking “whether permission to access the electronic device should be granted.” Ans. 8; Spec. ¶ 73. The claims are broad enough to include both embodiments. Wilson discloses using a database to determine whether the user has valid permission to access a device, and therefore Wilson teaches or suggests the claimed “set of valid permissions” and “a valid permission to access a feature of the electronic device.” Ans. 7–8 (citing Wilson ¶¶ 26, 33, 34, 57). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8, and claims 1–4, 6, 9–11, 13, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 10; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may also wish to consider any relevance to the claimed “set of valid permissions” in Scheurich’s disclosure that “within a place of business or within an organization, different designated persons are meant to be granted access to different things, people or parts of a location” (e.g., different employees having different permissions allowing them to access different rooms in a building). Scheurich ¶ 46. Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 Independent claim 15 recites “requesting from the user, by the electronic device, a biometric associated with authorized access to the Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 8 electronic device” and “deputizing the modulated signal as a proxy for the biometric.” Appellant’s argument against claim 15 focuses on the same “deputized” issue addressed above. Appeal Br. 9–10. We are not persuaded of error for the same reasons. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 15, and its dependent claims 16, 18, and 19, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 20 Claim 20 depends from independent claim 15. Appellant argues that “Bassali fails to teach what is missing from Wilson and Scheurich with respect to claim 15.” Appeal Br. 11. However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that Wilson and Scheurich are deficient. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 8– 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 103 Wilson, Scheurich 1–4, 6, 8– 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 20 103 Wilson, Scheurich, Bassali 20 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 8– 11, 13, 15, 16, 18–20 Appeal 2021-001813 Application 16/378,306 9 TIME TO RESPOND No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation