Ex Parte Mclaughlin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613754990 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) 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. 13/754,990 01/31/2013 Brian Smith MCLAUGHLIN BTLNP0104USA 1945 43076 7590 12/22/2016 MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE, NINETEENTH FLOOR EXAMINER MOORAD, IMRAN CLEVELAND, OH 44115-2191 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): ipdocket @ rennerotto. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN SMITH MCLAUGHLIN, LEONARDO B. GILL, MARSHALL JOSEPH TRACY, ERIK VAUGHN MITCHELL, and JEFFREY TODD DIXON Appeal 2016-002197 Application 13/754,9901 Technology Center 2400 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23, which constitute all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is related to authenticating the user of a computing device. Abstract; Spec. 1:1—11; 2:25—27. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Bottomline Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-002197 Application 13/754,990 Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal (disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A computing device, comprising: a processor; a computer readable memory; a display screen; a touch sensitive panel overlying the display screen; and computing device application instructions coded in the computer readable memory and executed by the processor to: display a user-selectable photograph on the display screen, the user selectable photograph including a group of fiducials, generate captured trace stroke pattern data, wherein: the captured trace stroke pattern data comprises multiple coordinate values along one or more trace strokes between a pair of fiducials from the group of fiducials on the touch sensitive panel where touched by a user, a measured radius value is associated with each coordinate value of the captured trace pattern data, and the measured radius value represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel at the coordinate value when the captured trace pattern data was captured, initiate comparison of the captured trace stroke pattern data and associated measured radius values with trace pattern verification data and associated radius values, wherein: the trace pattern verification data comprises coordinate data values representing coordinate values along one or more trace strokes on the touch sensitive panel and each coordinate data value of the trace pattern verification data is associated with a radius value, and provide for authentication of the user based on the comparison of the captured trace stroke pattern data and the trace pattern verification data, wherein the user is only authenticated if the measured radius values of the captured trace stroke pattern data matches, within a threshold, the radius values of the trace pattern verification data. App. Br. 17—18 (Claims Appendix). 2 Appeal 2016-002197 Application 13/754,990 REJECTION Claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 § U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werner et al. (US 2010/0169958 Al, published July 1, 2010) (“Werner”), Blonder (US 5,559,961, issued Sept. 24, 1996), Cortopassi et al. (US 2009/0202153 Al, published Aug. 13, 2009) (“Cortopassi”) and Kennedy et al. (US 2002/0080123 Al, published June 27, 2002) (“Kennedy”). Final Act. 6 -14. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Werner, Cortopassi, and Kennedy teach the limitations of claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23. Final Act. 6—16; Ans. 12—15. Appellants and the Examiner dispute whether the combination of Cortopassi and Kennedy teaches the claim 1 limitation the measured radius value represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel at the coordinate value when the captured trace pattern data was captured. App. Br. 4—15; Reply Br. 4—7; Final Act. 6—15; Ans. 12—15. The Examiner finds Cortopassi teaches a measured size value which represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel. . . Final Act. 8—9 (citing || 44, 56, 70; Figs. 8, 9, 13A, 14, 15). In particular, the Examiner finds Cortopassi pressure measurement establishes variations of stroke size. Id. (citing Figs. 8, 9, 15). For example, Figure 15 shows “variations of stroke size based on measured pressure.” Id. The Examiner finds the claim term contact size can be interpreted to include “a pressure measurement. . . made to generate a final size value (in pounds).” Id. at 4—5. The Examiner additionally determines contact size is non functional descriptive material because there is no requirement for the measured radius 3 Appeal 2016-002197 Application 13/754,990 representing a contact size to be of a specific value, contact size is not relied on by other limitations and, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, contact size can be “a dot or a point having infinitesimal radius.” Ans. 12— 13. With this interpretation, the Examiner then finds Cortopassi teaches the limitation the measured radius value represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel. Id. (citing Cortopassi H 16, 35, 17; Fig. 14). In particular, the Examiner finds Cortopassi teaches pressure can determine the width of an inputted stroke. Id. at 13 (citing Cortopassi 17, 71; Fig. 15). The Examiner then finds the term radius relates to width, which is analogous to diameter, and diameter and radius are directly related. Id.; see also Cortopassi 116. The Examiner finds Cortopassi (and Werner and Blonder) is silent regarding a measured radius value representing a contact size on the touch sensitive panel at the coordinate value when touch input data is captured. Final Act. 9. The Examiner then finds Kennedy teaches the measured radius value ... by describing measurement of a contact size in terms of pixels or millimeters wherein the size data is stored and used later to verify a contact type. Id. (citing Kennedy Tflf 24—27). The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the teaching of Cortopassi of taking size and location measurements along various points in a stroke for the purposes of authentication with the teaching of Kennedy wherein size measurement is a radius measurement. Id. 9—10. The Examiner additionally finds Kennedy supplements the teaching of Cortopassi. Ans. 14—15 (citing Kennedy 7, 24—27, 39, 41, 43). In particular: 4 Appeal 2016-002197 Application 13/754,990 [the] Examiner has cited portions of Kennedy to show that it would be have been reasonable to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cortopassi with that of Kennedy so that that Cortopassi's width detection techniques generate further size information pertaining to a touch input, such as touch area or width. Id. at 14. Appellants argue the limitation the measured radius value represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel is functional because the claim limitations rely on the measured radius values for authentication and the measured radius value represents a contact size. Reply Br. 2-4. Regarding the Examiner’s claim interpretation that contact size can be “a dot,” Appellants argue the measured radius is required to have a specific value in order for the user to be authenticated in the invention of claim 1 which recites: “the user is only authenticated if the measured radius values of the captured trace stroke pattern data matches, within a threshold, the radius values of the trace pattern verification data. ” Id. at 3. Appellants argue Cortopassi teaches performing user authentication based on the pressure applied at different points . . . .” App. Br. 13 (citing Cortopassi Abstract). According to Appellants, Cortopassi uses pressure data to authenticate a user and does not teach using a measured radius value, and the claim limitation cannot be interpreted to be a pressure value. Id. at 14. Regarding Cortopassi using measured pressure to set the displayed line thickness, Appellants argue “the width referenced by the Examiner is not a measured width, but is instead a rendered line width that is completely unrelated to the width or radius of the input.” Id. at 5 (citing Cortopassi 171; see also Fig. 15). According to Appellants: 5 Appeal 2016-002197 Application 13/754,990 While the Examiner argues that size may be a magnitude measurement, Cortopassi measures pressure (NOT a radius value). Claim 1 recites a “measured radius value represent[ing] a contact size on the touch sensitive panel.” A measured radius value representing a contact size is not a pressure. App. Br. 15. Appellants argue Kennedy teaches contact information, upon detection of a contact with a touchscreen, may include the size of the detected contact but does not teach “using the size of a detected contact to authenticate a user.” App. Br. 15—16 (citing Kennedy 124). We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, the Examiner’s interpretation of a measured radius value representing a contact size to include Cortopassi’s pressure teaching is unreasonable and overbroad. We also agree with Appellants that the claim limitation does not constitute non functional descriptive material because the limitation is functional and is utilized in other limitations. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding Cortopassi because Cortopassi teaches using stroke data and pressure data for handwriting recognition and authentication. Cortopassi’s description of the use of pressure to change the width of a line does not teach “a measured radius value [which] represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel ” for trace pattern recognition and authentication. See Cortopassi 16, 71; Fig. 15. We agree with Appellants that Cortopassi does not teach using the width of an input stroke for recognition or authentication. 6 Appeal 2016-002197 Application 13/754,990 Regarding Kennedy, inasmuch as we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Cortopassi teaches using the width of an input stroke for recognition or authentication, there is insufficient basis to make the combination of Cortopassi and Kennedy suggested by the Examiner and such combination would not result in the disputed limitation. In addition, we agree neither Cortopassi nor Kennedy teaches using contact size for authentication. In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and independent claim 12, which recites the disputed limitation. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3—11 and 14—23. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[Djependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious . . . .”). Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is dispositive of the rejection of these claims, we do not address additional arguments raised by Appellants. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—12, and 14— 23. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation