Ex Parte Kolupaev et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 201914306151 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/306,151 06/16/2014 155998 7590 DLA PIPER LLP US - Intuit ATTN: PATENT GROUP 11911 Freedom Dr. Suite 300 RESTON, VA 20190 05/30/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sergey Kolupaev 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. 3 27 696-000028 7964 EXAMINER FU,HAO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2019 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): PatentProsecutionRes@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGEY KOL UP AEV, SERGEY ALDOUKHOV, EUGENE 0. BOCHKAREV, ALEXANDER V. CHUMIKOV, and TIMOFEY BESCHASTNOV Appeal2018-004162 Application 14/306, 151 Technology Center 3600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-27. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chung (US 2009/0049534 Al, published Feb. 19, 2009), Zank (WO 2006/072047 A2, published July 6, 2006), and Lee (US 2009/0044019 Al, published Feb. 12, 2009). Final Act. 3-11. Appeal2018-004162 Application 14/306, 151 We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "fingerprinting signatures and enhanced signature capturing for charge card transactions on mobile communication devices." Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A machine implemented method for capturing and processing electronic signatures for a card transaction executed using a mobile communication device, the method being performed by at least the mobile communication device and compnsmg: the mobile communication device identifying, at a touch screen and a charge card reader included in or operatively coupled to the mobile communication device, a charge card transaction and transaction information, the transaction information comprising product or service information related to a transaction between a user and an entity and a signature of the user of the charge card; the mobile communication device executing a first transformation of the signature into one or more representations of the signature; the mobile communication device reducing computational complexities of analyzing the signature at least by executing at least one second transformation of a combination of the one or more representations and at least some of the transaction information into a fingerprint having a fixed length; and transmitting the one or more representations and the at least some of the transaction information from the mobile communication device to a remote server for storage in a repository via a computer network. 2 Appeal2018-004162 Application 14/306, 151 PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Contentions The Examiner finds Chung, Zank, and Lee teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Zank teaches "reducing computational complexities of analyzing the signature at least by executing at least one second transformation of a combination of the one or more representations and at least some of the transaction information into a fingerprint," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Zank ,r,r 13, 17-20, 23-26); see also Zank ,r 13 ("encrypting the captured signature with a hash of the transaction data. The transaction data may include price information for the transaction and/or identification of the goods being transacted, among other information."). In particular, the Examiner finds Lee teaches "having a fixed length" as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5 (citing Lee ,r 4); see also Lee ,r 4 ("hash algorithm (such as SHAl) is used for transforming the electronic document into a fixed-length character string"). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to modify Chung in view of Zank and Lee 3 Appeal2018-004162 Application 14/306, 151 because it is merely applying known techniques (i.e. comb[in]ing signature with transaction data, and transforming signature data into a fixed length fingerprint) to a known method (i.e. generating digital signature for transaction) ready to provide a predictable result (i.e. enhanced security level of digital signature and at the same time reduce the size). Final Act. 5. Among other arguments, Appellants argue Lee does not transform a signature combined with transaction information. For example, Appellants argue the following: [A]lthough ,r [0004] does recite the words 'transforming' and 'fixed-length', this cited paragraph is merely concerned with retrieving an electronic document from a database and transforming the electronic document for which a digital signature is requested into a fixed-length character string. Appellant respectfully submits that this is clearly NOT the claimed limitations of 'a second [transformation] of a combination of the one or more representations and at least some of the transaction information into a fingerprint having a fixed length'. App. Br. 20. Appellants additionally argue that, in Zank, encrypting the captured data with a hash of the transaction data does not produce a fingerprint having a fixed length. See App. Br. 27-33. Appellants additionally argue that encrypting and hashing are not interchangeable. App. Br. 17-18; see also Reply Br. 1--4. The Examiner responds that the Examiner "interpret[ s] hashing and encrypting interchangeably." Ans. 5. The Examiner further explains as follows: "There is no teaching or suggestion in the Zank reference to prevent the transformed signature from being fixed length. Provided with the Lee reference, one of ordinary skilled in the art would make Zank' s transformed 4 Appeal2018-004162 Application 14/306, 151 signature into fixed length in order to improve the signature's efficiency." Ans. 5. Our Review Zank discloses: This method [] can also include the step of encrypting the captured signature with a hash of the transaction data. The transaction data may include price information for the transaction and/or identification of the goods being transacted, among other information. The method can also include receiving a hash of the transaction data at the first device and/ or generating a hash of the transaction data at the first device. The method may additionally include the steps of: (a) generating a local hash of the transaction data at the second device using the same algorithm used to generate the hash at the first device; (b) decoding the encrypted captured signature at the second device using the local hash of the transaction data; and ( c) comparing the captured signature to a stored signature for verification. Zank ,r 13 ( emphasis added). The Examiner equates Zank' s encrypting to the recited "second transformation." See Final Act. 4--5. For purposes of our analysis, we assume, without deciding, that Zank teaches "reducing computational complexities of analyzing the signature at least by executing at least one second transformation of a combination of the one or more representations and at least some of the transaction information into a fingerprint," as recited in claim 1. We agree with Appellants that Zank' s encrypting does not produce a fingerprint having a fixed length. That said, the Examiner does not find that Zank teaches a fingerprint having a fixed length. See Final Act. 4--5. 5 Appeal2018-004162 Application 14/306, 151 Lee discloses "hash algorithm (such as SHAl) is used for transforming the electronic document into a fixed-length character string." Lee ,r 4 ( emphasis added). We find that Lee teaches a fingerprint having a fixed length. See Final Act. 5. Thus, this appeal hinges on one question: has the Examiner articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Zank's teachings to replace the encryption algorithm in Zank with a hash algorithm, such as the hash algorithm disclosed in Lee? We find the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness lacks a rational underpinning. We agree with Appellants that encrypting and hashing are not interchangeable. See App. Br. 17-18; see also Reply Br. 1--4. According to Zank in paragraph 13, the captured signature is encrypted at the first device, and subsequently, decrypted ( decoded) at the second device. Replacing Zank's encryption at the first device with a hash algorithm such as SHAl (Lee ,r 4) would preclude decryption/decoding at the second device. See App. Br. 17-18 (arguing encrypting and hashing are not interchangeable); see also Reply Br. 1--4. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-17, which depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 18 and 23 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 19-22 and 24--27, which depend from claims 18 and 23, respectively. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-27 is reversed. 6 Appeal2018-004162 Application 14/306, 151 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). REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation