Ex Parte Han et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2017

13802499 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2017)

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.
13/802,499 03/13/2013 Byron B. Han P15254US1 4199
7590 05/12/201762579
APPLE INC.
c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
MURPHY, JOSEPH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2017 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 BYRON B. HAN, CRAIG A. MARCINIAK, and
JOHN A. WRIGHT
Appeal 2016-003375
Application 13/802,4991
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CARL. L. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, all of the pending claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003375
Application 13/802,499
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a computing device and method for
associating authentication credentials with biometric information. Spec.
Abstract, || 6—9.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'.
1. A system for automatic association of authentication
credentials with biometrics, comprising:
at least one processing unit;
at least one touch input/output (I/O) device coupled to the
at least one processing unit, wherein the at least one touch I/O
device includes a fingerprint sensor disposed below a touch
sensitive surface, the touch sensitive surface configured to
receive touch inputs for the system; and
at least one non-transitory storage medium storing
instructions executable by the at least one processing unit to:
receive authentication information from at least
one user;
within a time-out period from receipt of the
authentication information, receive at least one fingerprint
from the at least one user via the touch sensitive surface while
the touch sensitive surface receives one or more touch inputs
from the at least one user; and
assign at least one authentication credential to the
at least one fingerprint based at least on at least one
authentication credential associated with the authentication
information.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL AND APPLIED PRIOR ART
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pleasant et al. (US2009/0320125 Al; Dec. 24, 2009)
(“Pleasant”), Jiang et al. (GB 2447752 A; Sept. 24, 2008) (“Jiang”), and
Kim (US 2010/0225607 Al; Sept. 9, 2010).
2
Appeal 2016-003375
Application 13/802,499
Claims 3—7, 10, 12—14, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pleasant, Jiang, Kim, and Bianco et al.
(US 6,256,737 Bl; July 3, 2001).
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pleasant, Jiang, Kim, Bianco, and Jacobs (US
2008/0109871 Al; May 8, 2008).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and Appellants’
arguments in the Reply Brief. We agree with Appellants’ arguments. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Pleasant teaches “receiv[ing] authentication
information from at least one user; within a time-out period from receipt of
the authentication information, receiv[ing] at least one fingerprint from the
at least one user,” as recited in claim 1, and recited similarly in independent
claims 11 and 20. See Final Act. 8, 12, 15 (citing Pleasant || 32, 43, 69).
The Examiner explains that Pleasant teaches “receive at least one fingerprint
from the at least one user,” based on Pleasant’s disclosure of using biometric
identification including finger or thumbprint identification, and a
workstation configured with a fingerprint reader. See Ans. 5—6 (citing
Pleasant || 32, 69). The Examiner asserts that Pleasant teaches “within a
time-out period from receipt of the authentication information,” based on
Pleasant’s disclosure of the configurability of software such that users can
set and change settings in the security module, including an inactivity
timeout (a duration of inactivity after which input devices are transformed
back to no access), and a logon form timeout (a duration of inactivity on a
3
Appeal 2016-003375
Application 13/802,499
log on window after which the logon form will become minimized or
otherwise not visible until the next attempt to input data). See Ans. 6 (citing
Pleasant 143). The Examiner contends that “because the disclosure of
Pleasant fairly teaches all elements of the subject limitation of Appellant’s
independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claims 11 and 20), Examiner
has provided an explicit prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject claim limitation(s).” Id.
We agree with Appellants’ argument that the cited disclosures of
Pleasant do not teach or suggest receiving at least one fingerprint within a
time-out period from receipt of the authentication information. See App. Br.
9-11 (citing Pleasant || 32, 43, 69). We further agree with Appellants’
argument that Pleasant teaches a timeout period as an inactivity timeout
associated with a lack of action and a timeout period in conjunction with a
log in window or an input device, but does not teach or suggest a time out
period with respect to fingerprints, where the fingerprints are received within
a time out period from receipt of authentication data. See Reply Br. 3^4;
Pleasant 143.
The Examiner does not rely on the additional teachings of Jiang and
Kim to remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Pleasant. See Final Act.
8—18. Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 2, 9, 11, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Pleasant, Jiang, and Kim. The
Examiner further does not rely on the additional teachings Bianco and
Jacobs to remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Pleasant. See Final
Act. 18—30. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 3—7, 10, 12—14, and 16—18 as unpatentable over Pleasant,
4
Appeal 2016-003375
Application 13/802,499
Jiang, Kim, and Bianco, and dependent claims 8 and 15 as unpatentable over
Pleasant, Jiang, Kim, and Jacobs.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5