Ex Parte Skerpac

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2014

10062799 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014)

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.
10/062,799 01/31/2002 Valene Skerpac 3395
7590 09/22/2014
Francis C. Hand, Esq.
c/o Carella, Byme, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi,
Stewart & Olstein
6 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
DAVIS, ZACHARY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VALENE SKERPAC

___________

Appeal 2012-004772
Application 10/062,799
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004772
Application 10/062,799
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11, 14,
and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
1
Appeal Brief 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a security system that relies upon speech
recognition to identify and validate the user. Abstract.
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A N-dimensional biometric security system comprising
a station for receiving information representative of a user from the
user and generating a signal responsive thereto;
a first data base having a plurality of words and language rules for
randomly generating one-time challenge phrases from said words wherein
each word of a randomly generated phrase is randomly generated;
a second data base having biometric models of the user therein; and
a controller to receive and validate said signal as representative of the
user, said controller, in response to validation of said signal, communicating
with said first data base for randomly generating a one-time challenge phrase
from said plurality of words and language rules in said first data base and
delivering said one-time challenge phrase to said station for the user to speak

1
Appellant indicates claims 10 and 13 are appealed (Appeal Brief 2),
however they are not rejected by the Examiner (Answer 4) nor have the
merits of the claims been addressed by Appellant. We consider Appellant’s
listing of claims 10 and 13 to be merely harmless error.
Appeal 2012-004772
Application 10/062,799
3

said one-time challenge phrase exactly and said controller communicating
with said station
to receive a spoken response from the user to said delivered one-time
challenge phrase and to generate a second signal representative of the
spoken response,
to process the entire said second signal for speaker recognition and to
issue a first validation signal in response to a match between said second
signal and said stored biometric model,
to process the entire said second signal for speech recognition and to
issue a second validation signal in response to said second signal exactly
matching said one-time challenge phrase, and
to validate the spoken response to said one-time challenge phrase as
representative of the user in response to receiving said first validation signal
and said second validation signal.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11, 14, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Hattori (US Patent Number 6,094,632;
issued July 25, 2000) and Higgins, “Speaker Verification Using Randomized
Phrase Prompting” (published online July 6, 2004). Answer 4–11.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 26, 2011), the Answer (mailed
December 6, 2011), and the Reply Brief (filed February 3, 2012) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
Appeal 2012-004772
Application 10/062,799
4
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments that
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief
and adopt them as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly
overturn or set aside in the analysis as follows.
Appellant argues Hattori fails to disclose a station that receives
information from a user to deliver a signal to a controller that, in response,
delivers a one-time challenge phrase to the station for the user to speak as
specified in claim 1. Appeal Brief 9. Hattori discloses, “The specified text
is specified by the speaker recognition device or by the user of the device,
and the password is decided by each speaker to be registered on speaker
registration.” Hattori, column 9, lines 2–5. Accordingly, Hattori’s one-time
challenge phrase is confined to each interaction session between the speaker
recognition device and the speaker seeking recognition for verification. This
is commensurate with Appellant’s description — “[A] first data base having
a plurality of words and language rules for generating one-time challenge
phrases corresponding to the user and a session access request therein.”
Specification, page 6, lines 12–14.
Appellant further argues Hattori fails to disclose “a data base having a
plurality of words and language rules for randomly generating one-time
challenge phrases as required by claim 1.” Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner
relied upon Higgins to disclose the randomness of the challenge phrases, not
Appeal 2012-004772
Application 10/062,799
5

Hattori. Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive.
2
See
Answer 5.
Appellant argues Hattori fails to disclose “a database having a
plurality of words and language rules for randomly generating one-time
challenge phrases.” Appeal Brief 12. As discussed above, Higgins was
relied upon to show the randomness of the challenge phrases. Hattori
discloses the security system has storage capacity to accommodate the
passwords and texts. Hattori, column 9, lines 5–11; 21–28. Therefore, we
do not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive in view of Hattori’s
disclosure.
Appellant argues Hattori fails to disclose “generating a second signal
that represents the spoken response” as claimed. Appeal Brief 13. The
Examiner relies upon Higgins to disclose this feature, not Hattori, therefore,
we do not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. See Answer 5–6.
Appellant argues the Examiner is in error because Higgins discloses
the individual enrollee (person seeking to be verified) will only speak 24
phrases that the system will record for the individual enrollee and, therefore,
the phrases are bound to be repeated and consequently, the 24 phrases are
not-one time challenge phrases as claimed. Appeal Brief 14–15. The claims
do not recite a particular duration for the one-time challenge phrase.

2
“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)).

Appeal 2012-004772
Application 10/062,799
6

As discussed above, Appellant’s Specification (“generating one-time
challenge phrases corresponding to the user and a session access request”)
appears to base the exclusivity of the phrases upon each individual session.
Specification 6, lines 12–14. In other words, the claims read upon the one-
time challenge phrases being used one time per each session with repetition
of the phrases allowed in different sessions. Therefore, we do not find
Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive because they are not commensurate
with the scope of the claim. Further still, the Examiner finds Higgins limits
the 24 phrases for enrollment purposes only, and further finds Higgins
generates at random a possible set of 56
3
(175,616) phrases. Answer 15–16.
As the Examiner indicates, Appellant’s arguments for independent
claims 2, 4, 5, 16, and 17 repeat the arguments made in regard to claim 1.
See Answer 20. We did not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive in
regard to claim 1 nor do we find them to be persuasive in regard to claims 2,
4, 5, 16, and 17 for the same reasons articulated above. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 16, and 17.
Appellant argues in regard to the rejection of claim 18 that Hattori
does not support the rejection because Hattori is “void of any teaching of
words and language rules in a plurality of language sets or of any language
sets of different subject areas.” Appeal Brief 19. However, the Examiner
finds Hattori discloses additional wording and rules. Answer 20 (citing
Hattori column 9, lines 19–47; column 8, lines 65 – column 9, line 5;
column 9, lines 18–37). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 18, as well as, dependent claims 6–8, 11, and 14 not
separately argued.

Appeal 2012-004772
Application 10/062,799
7
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11,
14, and 16–18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED
dw