Ex Parte CHIUDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201512153143 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation