Ex Parte CHIU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

12153143 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/153,143 05/14/2008
60601 7590 12/28/2015
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P,C,
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yeong-How CHIU
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4443/0479PUS 1 4497
EXAMINER
NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2496
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEONG-HOW CHIU
Appeal2014-000784
Application 12/153,143
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4---6, 12, and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-000784
Application 12/153, 143
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to an Internet business security
system (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An Internet business security system, wherein the
business security system couples with a certificate issuer, the
system comprises:
a reading apparatus for reading a smart card and
generating a one-time password, wherein the smart card is
issued by the certificate issuer to a user based on a user data of
the user;
a front process apparatus for transmitting login data or
processed data of the user for proving the one-time password
and receiving results after the one-time password is verified,
and when the one-time password is correct, a service is
provided to the user, wherein the login data or the processed
data do not include real identification data of the user; and
a rear process apparatus coupling with the front process
apparatus to receive the login data or the processed data,
wherein the rear process apparatus comprises:
a pre-proof module to process the login data or the
processed data to generate a necessary data for verifying the
one-time password; and
an authorization module authorized by the
certificate issuer to determine whether or not the one-time
password is correct, and wherein the authorization module
further comprises:
an identification proof module to determine
whether or not the one-time password is correct and to
requires the certificate issuer or a party authorized by the
certificate issuer to authorize the use of the user data
when the one-time password is correct; or
a trade proof module to determine whether or not
the one-time password is correct and to require the
certificate issuer or a party authorized by the certificate
2
Appeal2014-000784
Application 12/153, 143
issuer to authorize to perform a trade process based on
the user data when the one-time password is correct; or
a payment proof module to determine whether or
not the one-time password is correct and to require the
certificate issuer or a party authorized by the certificate
issuer to authorize to perform a payment process based
on the user data when the one-time password is correct.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4---6, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Buer (US 2007/0118745 Al;
pub. May 24, 2007) and Glazer (US 2008/0083024 Al; pub. Apr. 3, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Buer and Glazer each teach two-phase
authentication (App. Br. 11); in contrast, Appellant's security system uses a
single-phase authentication. That is, Appellant asserts their security system
does not "demand to verify the identification of the user" before the user's
login data, processed data, and one-time password reach a rear process
apparatus or pre-proof module that perform authentication (App. Br. 9, 10,
12; Reply Br. 1). Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1, which does not require only single-phase authentication. Claim 1
recites a rear process apparatus verifies a one-time password, however,
claim 1 does not preclude a reading apparatus, a certificate issuer, or a front
process apparatus from verifying user's login data, processed data, or one-
time password.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Glazer's Figure 1 discloses a front
process apparatus transmitting login data, not including user's real
3
Appeal2014-000784
Application 12/153, 143
identification, to a rear process apparatus verifying the user as recited in
claim 1 (Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 5, 6; Glazer i-fi-120, 22, 23, 30, Fig. 1, access
provider 108, single use user ID 102, access verifier 100). Appellant has not
addressed how Glazer's Figure 1 does not teach the claimed front and rear
process apparatuses; rather, Appellant addresses how Glazer does not teach
single-phase only authentication (see App. Br. 9, 11-12; Reply Br. 1).
However, as the Examiner finds, Glazer performs a single-phase only
authentication, as Appellant uses this phrase.
Appellant further argues there is no reason to combine Buer and
Glazer to obtain the claimed security system because "two 2-phase
authentications cannot be simplified to a single phase authentication" (App.
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3). Appellant's arguments do not address the
Examiner's specific findings regarding what the collective teachings of Buer
and Glazer would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 4;
Final Act. 6). We find no error with the Examiner's persuasive reasoning
for modifying Buer based on Glazer, to provide website access to a user
while protecting anonymity (Final Act. 6; Glazer i14).
Thus, Appellant has failed to clearly distinguish the claimed invention
over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 12 for which Appellant
provides substantially the same arguments (App. Br. 9, 11), and dependent
claims 2, 4---6, and 13 for which no separate arguments are provided (App.
Br. 6).
4
Appeal2014-000784
Application 12/153, 143
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 12, and 13 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
msc
5