Ex Parte Han et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 201713802499 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation