Fingerprint Cards ABDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 2, 20212020002042 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021) 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. 15/439,501 02/22/2017 Markus Andersson 14003-000077/US 9393 112467 7590 06/02/2021 RMCK Law Group, PLC PO Box 210280 Auburn Hills, MI 48321 EXAMINER RUSH, ERIC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2021 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): gail@rmcklaw.com mailbox@rmcklaw.com michelle@rmcklaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARKUS ANDERSSON, ERIC SETTERBERG, and HANS THÖRNBLOM ____________________ Appeal 2020-002042 Application 15/439,5011 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN A. EVANS, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 5–11, 14, 15, and 18–25.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s invention is an electronic device that includes a fingerprint sensor, a pre-processing module, and a device controller. The 1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Fingerprint Cards AB. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 4, 12, 13, 16, and 17 have been cancelled. Appeal 2020-002042 Application 15/439,501 2 pre-processing module performs a pre-processing step that includes matching determined features of image data of an object at a vicinity of the fingerprint sensor with stored fingerprint features of a user before waking up the main device controller. Spec. ¶¶ 39, 40. If the pre-processing step determines a match, the device controller is transitioned to active and a full authentication procedure is initiated. Spec. ¶ 40. Claim 1 is reproduced below: A method for transitioning a device controller comprised with an electronic device from an at least partly inactive mode to an at least partly active mode, the electronic device further comprising a pre-processing module and a fingerprint sensor configured to acquire image data, said method comprising the steps of: -determining the presence of an object at a vicinity of the fingerprint sensor; -acquiring, using the fingerprint sensor, image data representative of the object; -pre-processing the acquired image data, using the pre- processing module, to determine features indicative of a fingerprint, wherein the device controller is in the at least partly inactive mode; -matching, using the pre-processing module, the determined features with at least one set of stored fingerprint features of a finger of a user of the electronic device; -generating an instruction to transition the device controller to the at least partly active mode if a result of the matching indicates that the acquired image data corresponds to the at least one finger of the user of the electronic device, -providing the acquired image data and information relating to the matching performed at the pre-processing module to the device controller being transitioned to the at least partly active mode; and -performing a fingerprint authentication procedure, using the device controller, based on the image data, the information Appeal 2020-002042 Application 15/439,501 3 relating to the matching at the pre-processing module, and at least one fingerprint template, wherein the pre-processing module IS integrated with the fingerprint sensor and IS separate from the device controller. Appeal Br. 18–19 (Claims Appendix). The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Walfridsson US 7,333,637 B2 Feb. 19, 2008 Hillhouse US 2004/0230810 A1 Nov. 18, 2004 Boshra US 2009/0316963 A1 Dec. 24, 2009 Lien US 2013/0263252 A1 Oct. 3, 2013 Coons US 2014/0026208 A1 Jan. 23, 2014 Boshra US 2016/0125223 A1 May 5, 2016 Claims 1, 2, 5–10, 14, 15, 18–21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, Coons, and Boshra ‘963. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, Coons, Boshra ‘963, and Hillhouse. Claims 11 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, Coons, Boshra ‘963, and Boshra ‘223. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, Coons, Boshra ‘963, and Walfridsson. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 24, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 16, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 18, 2019) for their respective details. Appeal 2020-002042 Application 15/439,501 4 ISSUE Does the combination of Lien, Coons, and Boshra ‘963 teach or suggest providing acquired image data and information relating to the matching performed at a pre-processing module, so as to perform a fingerprint authentication procedure based on the acquired image data, the information relating to the matching at the pre-processing module, and at least one fingerprint template? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 5–10, 14, 15, 18–21, and 24 Claim 1, the sole independent claim in this appeal, recites, in pertinent part, Providing the acquired image data and information relating to the matching performed at the pre-processing module to the device controller being transitioned to the at least partly active mode, and Performing a fingerprint authentication procedure, using the device controller, based on the image data, the information relating to the matching at the pre-processing module, and at least one fingerprint template. Appellant argues that Lien and Coons do not disclose supplying “the information relating to the matching” from the pre-processing module to the device controller, as is claimed. Reply Br. 2–4. The Examiner finds that Lien teaches providing “information relating to the matching performed at the pre-processing module” to the device controller, and “performing a fingerprint authentication procedure, using the device controller, based on the image data, the information relating to the Appeal 2020-002042 Application 15/439,501 5 matching at the pre-processing module, and at least one fingerprint template.” Ans. 34; Lien ¶¶ 33, 48. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding concerning the teachings of Lien. Lien teaches “wak[ing] up the host electronic device” upon determining that the object in the vicinity of sensor 10 is an actual finger. Lien ¶ 33. Lien further teaches limiting power consumption until a determination that there is a live finger in the vicinity of the button. Lien ¶ 48. We do not agree that Lien teaches “matching” within the meaning contemplated in the claim, but rather teaches only the determination of the presence of a live finger. Thus, we find that the cited portions of Lien cannot provide “information relating to the matching.” We further disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Lien teaches “re-using” the information obtained during pre-processing. Ans. 34. We do not find a teaching in the portions of Lien cited by the Examiner to the effect that Lien uses image data or matching information previously obtained in spoof detection in any further fingerprint authentication. See Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner, in fact, admits that Lien does not expressly describe the claimed matching. Ans. 32. The Examiner then further finds that Coons (which incorporates Boshra ‘963 by reference) discloses “performing matching at the pre-processing module in a preliminary check.” Ans. 32. We agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of Coons determines whether input data is representative of a live finger. Coons teaches discrimination between a live finger and a spoof finger. Coons ¶¶ 30, 33, 35. As with Lien, we do not find in the cited portions of Coons a teaching of pre-processing that includes matching determined features with at least one set of stored fingerprint features of a finger of a user, and thus we find that the cited Appeal 2020-002042 Application 15/439,501 6 portions of Coons cannot teach providing information relating to the matching performed at the pre-processing module, as claim 1 requires. We agree with Appellant’s argument that the cited portions of Coons, like Lien, does not disclose re-using matching information from a pre-processing step in a further fingerprint identification step. Appeal Br. 15. Boshra ‘963’s invention is also directed to fingerprint authentication and enhanced spoof finger detection. Like Lien and Coons, the cited portions of Boshra ‘963 do not teach pre-processing determined features with at least one set of stored finger features, and subsequently performing a “full” fingerprint authentication based on image data, a fingerprint template, and the information relating to the matching at the pre-processing module. See Boshra ‘963 ¶¶ 35-38, 43-49, 52. We thus find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combined teachings of Lien, Coons, and Boshra ‘963 would have suggested the claimed two step fingerprint authentication, in which certain features are matched in a pre-processing module, with information relating to that matching being “re-used” in a subsequent fingerprint authentication procedure. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–10, 14, 15, 18–21, and 24. Claims 3, 11, 22, 23, and 25 As analyzed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 1. The Examiner does not find that Hillhouse, Boshra ‘223, or Walfridsson contain teachings that make up for the deficiencies we have identified in the combination of Lien, Coons, and Boshra ‘963. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 3 over Lien, Coons, Boshra ‘963, and Hillhouse; claims 11 and 25 Appeal 2020-002042 Application 15/439,501 7 over Lien, Coons, Boshra ‘963, and Boshra ‘223; and claims 22 and 23 over Lien, Coons, and Walfridsson, for the reasons expressed supra with respect to claim 1. CONCLUSION The combination of Lien, Coons, and Boshra ‘963 does not teach or suggest providing acquired image data and information relating to the matching performed at a pre-processing module, so as to perform a fingerprint authentication procedure based on the acquired image data, the information relating to the matching at the pre-processing module, and at least one fingerprint template. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5–10, 14, 15, 18– 21, 24 103 Lien, Coons, Boshra ‘963 1, 2, 5–10, 14, 15, 18– 21, 24 3 103 Lien, Coons, Boshra ‘963, Hillhouse 3 11, 25 103 Lien, Coons, Boshra ‘963, Boshra ‘223 11, 25 22, 23 103 Lien, Coons, Walfridsson 22, 23 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–11, 14, 15, 18– 25 Appeal 2020-002042 Application 15/439,501 8 ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–11, 14, 15, and 18– 25 is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation