Ex Parte Stewart

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

13843530 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/843,530 03/15/2013 Guy A. Stewart
86528 7590 09/20/2018
Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1650
Austin, TX 78701
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.
68354.225991 5153
EXAMINER
SIDDIQI, MOHAMMAD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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):
trosson@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
dallen@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUY A. STEWART
Appeal 2018-003081
Application 13/843,530 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the Applicant, Microchip Technology Incorporated, as
the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003081
Application 13/843,530
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to using an embedded controller to
maintain security of a device such as a computer. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A computer system, comprising:
a host system comprising a processor and memory,
wherein the memory stores an operating system;
a sensor unit coupled with the host system via an
embedded controller, wherein the sensor unit provides sensor
data from at least one sensor and wherein the sensor data is
provided to the host system via the embedded controller;
the embedded controller coupled to the host system,
wherein the embedded controller comprises a cryptographic
module and a memory medium storing program instructions
executable to:
receive the sensor data from the sensor unit;
encrypt and/ or digitally sign the sensor data,
thereby generating protected sensor data by means of the
cryptographic module; and
send the protected sensor data to the host system
via a system interface;
wherein the protected sensor data are useable by
the host system for authenticating the user.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 2011/0260884 Al; Oct. 27,
2011) and Hamid et al. (US 6,877,097 B2; Apr. 5, 2005). Final Act. 2-6.
2
Appeal 2018-003081
Application 13/843,530
Claims 3, 11, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Yi, Hamid, and Orisini et al. (US 2006/0177061
Al; Aug. 10, 2006). Final Act. 7-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because the combination of Yi
and Hamid does not teach or suggest "embedded controller coupled to the
host system, wherein the embedded controller comprises a cryptographic
module," as recited in claim 1. Br. 5-6. In particular, Appellant argues the
Examiner relies on Yi's aggregator 112 as the claimed "embedded
controller" and Yi' s sensor 114 "actually does the encrypting." Br. 5 ( citing
Final Act. 3). Appellant argues Yi does not teach an "embedded controller"
that "comprises a cryptographic module" because aggregator 112 and sensor
114 are "clearly delineated" with separate, distinct functionality. Br. 5.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, sensor 114 (the claimed "embedded controller") is
configured with software to encrypt or digitally sign the sensor data and
transmit that data to aggregator 112. Ans. 3 ( citing Yi, Fig. 1, ,r 79).
Accordingly, the Examiner relies on sensor 114 as the "embedded
3
Appeal 2018-003081
Application 13/843,530
controller" that "comprises a cryptographic module." Id. Appellant's
argument regarding the separate, distinct functionality of sensor 114 and
aggregator 112 is unpersuasive because it misapprehends the Examiner's
findings.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred because the combination
of Yi and Hamid does not teach or suggest protected sensor data "wherein
the protected sensor data are useable by the host system for authenticating
the user," as recited in claim 1. Br. 7. In particular, Appellant argues Hamid
discloses detecting a fingerprint pattern ("sensor data"), digitizing the
pattern, and sending the digitized data for signal processing. Id. ( citing
Hamid 7:51-61). According to Appellant, the analog-to-digital conversion
performed by Hamid does not create "protected sensor data" as required in
claim 1. Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Hamid teaches encrypting biometric sensor data and
sending the encrypted data to a central controller to authorize a user. Ans. 3
(citing Hamid 4:40-55). Contrary to Appellant's argument, which does not
reference the cited teachings, Hamid explicitly discloses "a processor for
encrypting the encoded description to provide an encrypted description in
accordance with a predefined encryption key" where "the encoded
description" refers to encoded biometric sensor data. Hamid 4:40-55. We
agree with the Examiner's finding that Hamid's teaching of "encrypting" the
biometric data teaches or suggests "protected sensor data" as claimed. See
Ans. 3.
Finally, Appellant argues the Examiner erred because an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have had "zero" motivation to combine Yi and Hamid.
4
Appeal 2018-003081
Application 13/843,530
Br. 7-9. In particular, Appellant argues "Hamid and Yi have very little to do
with one another beyond a general concern over computing technology and
sensors. In fact, Yi has nothing whatsoever to do with biometric data ( or any
other user data)." Br. 8.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Yi teaches an embedded controller that includes a
sensor that sends encrypted data to an aggregator. Ans. 4. The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, Hamid teaches a host system using protected
sensor data to authenticate a user accessing a protected device. Id. at 5. The
Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to
modify Yi's system to use Hamid's authentication teachings to further
secure the system. Id. at 5. Appellant's argument that Yi and Hamid have
"very little to do with one another" (Br. 8) is unpersuasive because it does
not directly address the Examiner's findings regarding how an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Yi and Hamid and the
motivation to do so.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Yi and Hamid. We also sustain the rejection of
independent claims 12 and 13, for which Appellant relies on the same
arguments. See Br. 4. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2,
4-10, and 16-19, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id.
4-9.
Claims 3, 11, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yi, Hamid, and Orisini. Final Act. 7-8.
Appellant does not offer separate arguments for these claims. See Br. 4-9.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 11, 14, 15, and 20.
5
Appeal 2018-003081
Application 13/843,530
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20.
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 )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6