Ex Parte SkerpacDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201410062799 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation