Ex Parte Porten et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2019

14986504 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/986,504 12/31/2015 Joshua Porten
38706 7590 07/11/2019
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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.
111491-0147 (JTI-015-C) 7861
EXAMINER
ZHAO, DAQUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2019 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA PORTEN, SOFIN RASKIN, MICHAEL WANG,
SHAOAN CHIN, and ALEXANDER INDENBAUM 1
Appeal2017-011860
Application 14/986,504
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5. Claims 6-8, 19, and 20 are
canceled (see Claims Appendix). Claims 9-18 are allowed (see Ans. 10).
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). An Oral
Hearing was held on June 25, 2019.
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to securing otherwise
unsecured computer audio and video subsystems (see Spec., Abstract).
1 Appellants name Janus Technologies, Inc. as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2017-011860
Application 14/986,504
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computing device comprising:
a host processor subsystem including a CPU and a
video subsystem for producing a video output for playback and
display on an associated video output device, wherein the video
output includes first and second different streams produced by
an operating system and application software running on the
CPU of the host processor subsystem; and
a secure subsystem that receives the video output from
the host processor subsystem and controls an actual playback
and display of the video output on the associated video output
device, wherein the control includes selectively passing the first
stream from the host processor to the video output device
unchanged, and performing processing on content of the second
stream before passing the second stream to the video output
device, and
wherein the video output further includes video data
produced by an associated video input device, and
wherein the secure subsystem performs analytics on the
video data produced by the associated video input device and
output from the host processing subsystem, and
wherein the analytics comprise a biometric authentication
application that is adapted to determine whether a user of the
computing device is authorized to use the computing device
based on analysis of the video data, and
wherein the secure subsystem is adapted to prevent use of
the computing device by the user if the biometric authentication
application determines that the user is not authorized to use the
computing device, and
wherein the secure subsystem is adapted to prevent use of
the computing device by the unauthorized user by shutting
down the computing device, and
wherein the secure subsystem is adapted to shut down the
computing device after the user determined by the biometric
authentication application to be unauthorized has been present
in the video data for a threshold amount of time.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
2
Appeal2017-011860
Application 14/986,504
unpatentable over Spurgat (US 2002/0057795 Al, May 16, 2002),
Gravoille (US 2011/0158609 Al, June 30, 2011), Sipe (US 8,457,367
Bl, June 4, 2013), and Kmnar2 (US 2014/0075211 Al, Mar. 13,
2014).
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
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Kumar teaches or
suggests "to shut down the computing device after the user
determined ... to be unauthorized has been present in the video data
for a threshold amount of time," as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend, "[i]n connection with the claimed actions
of shutting down the computing device, the Office Action primarily
relies on Kumar. However, Kumar merely teaches shutting down
power to a camera after there has been no activity for an amount of
time" (App. Br. 6). Appellants further contend that "[t]his is exactly
opposite to the requirements of [the] claims, which set forth shutting
down a computing device after an unauthorized user is present for a
threshold amount of time" (id. at 8). We agree with Appellants.
2 Appellants filed an Amendment after final incorporating claims 19 and 20
into claim 1, and the Examiner entered the amendment (see Advisory Action
dated January 26, 2017). As such, we shall treat the rejection of claim 1 as
also including the Kumar reference (see Final Action 11-12).
3
Appeal2017-011860
Application 14/986,504
The Examiner finds that "[i]t would have been obvious to one
[ ofJ ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the teaching ofKuma[r] et al[.] to tum off the power after an
unauthorized presented himself or herself for a period of time" (Ans.
11 ). Here, it appears that the Examiner is conceding that Kumar does
not explicitly teach the aforementioned claimed feature because the
Examiner states that one would "modify the teaching" of Kumar to
tum off the power after an unauthorized presented himself or herself
for a period of time (id.), as oppose to finding that Kumar actually
teaches this feature. Such a finding appears to rest on speculation,
unfounded assumptions, and/or hindsight reconstruction of the
claimed invention. See In re Warner, 379 F .2d 1011, 1017 (CCP A
1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual
basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight
reconstruction of the invention from the prior art").
Kumar discloses:
At block 220, the sensor cascading microdriver 128 may
receive data from facial recognition software to determine if a
user is authorized. For example, the face of a person in close
proximity to the computing system may be compared to any
suitable number of faces of authorized users. . . . If the sensor
cascading microdriver 128 determines a user is not authorized,
... the sensor cascading driver 128 determines if a timeout
occurs. In some examples, a timeout may indicate a user has
not been authorized within a period of time.
Kumar ,r 24; see also Fig. 2B. In other words, within a certain period
of time, Kumar checks for an authorized user, not an unauthorized
user. If no user is authorized within this period, a timeout occurs.
Kumar further discloses:
4
Appeal2017-011860
Application 14/986,504
If the sensor cascading microdriver 128 determines a timeout
has occurred, the process flow continues by stopping execution
of facial recognition software at block 230.
Kumar ,r 25.
At block 218, the sensor cascading microdriver 128 can
determine if another timeout value is reached or exceeded
without detecting any input or activity from the camera. . . . If
the sensor cascading microdriver 128 determines a timeout
value for the camera has been exceeded, power can be turned
off to the camera at block 234 to reduce power consumption of
the computing system.
Kumar ,r 26. In other words, Kumar stops execution of facial
recognition when the first timeout occurs and if another timeout value
is reached, i.e, for inactivity, power is turned off to the camera.
In contrast to Kumar, claim 1 recites, inter alia, wherein the
secure subsystem is adapted to shut down the computing device after
the user, determined by the biometric authentication application to be
unauthorized, has been present in the video data for a threshold
amount of time (see claim 1 ). In other words, the claimed invention
seeks an unauthorized user being present in the video for a certain
amount of time, and this feature shuts down the computing device.
Whereas, Kumar shuts down the camera due to inactivity of the facial
recognition component and/or no detection of an authorized user
within a period of time. Kumar is not concerned with how long an
unauthorized user is present, but rather focuses on how long since an
authorized user has been detected in order to reduce power
consumption.
Thus, for at least the reasons noted supra, we disagree with the
Examiner's finding that a somehow modified Kumar teaches "to shut
5
Appeal2017-011860
Application 14/986,504
down the computing device after the user determined ... to be
unauthorized has been present in the video data for a threshold
amount of time," as recited in independent claim 1. Also, the
Examiner has not found that any of the other references of record
teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants'
other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 1-5.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
6