Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2021

2021001813 (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.
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