Ollila, Mikko

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 12, 2019

14972197 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2019)

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.
14/972,197 12/17/2015 Mikko Ollila P91298 6279
104333 7590 12/12/2019
International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C.
13231 Champion Forest Drive
Suite 410
Houston, TX 77069
EXAMINER
GEROLEO, FRANCIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2019 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):
Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO OLLILA
Appeal 2019-001033
Application 14/972,197
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 5–25, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Intel Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001033
Application 14/972,197

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to iris imaging. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electronic device for imaging an iris, comprising:
a camera;
a Light Emitting Diode (LED) assembly to provide a light
for an iris image, the LED assembly comprising an LED and a
tunable filter disposed over the LED, the tunable filter to tune a
wavelength of the light emitted by the LED assembly; and
a processor to:
control the tunable filter and the camera to capture a first
iris image at a first wavelength of the light emitted by the LED
assembly and capture a second iris image at a second wavelength
of the light emitted by the LED assembly;
compare a sharpness of the first iris image and the second
iris image to identify a selected iris image based on which of the
first wavelength or the second wavelength provided better image
sharpness; and
enroll the selected iris image for subsequent user log in.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Rowe et al. (“Rowe”)
Martin et al. (“Martin”)
Hanna
Feng et al. (“Feng”)
US 2006/0210120 A1
US 2008/0075335 A1
US 2011/0002510 A1
US 2016/0019421 A1
Sept. 21, 2006
Mar. 27, 2008
Jan. 6, 2011
Jan. 21, 2016
Takeuchi et al. (Takeuchi”) US 2007/0088192 A2 Apr. 19, 2007

REJECTION
Claims 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Final Act. 2.
Claim 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 6–10, 13–15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Agrawal, Rowe, and Martin. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-001033
Application 14/972,197

3
Claims 5, 16–18, and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Agrawal, Rowe, Martin, and Takeuchi. Final Act. 6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Agrawal, Rowe, Martin, and Feng. Final Act. 6.
Claims 12, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Agrawal, Rowe, Martin, and Hanna. Final Act. 7.
OPINION
Section 112 Rejection
Appellant does not traverse the § 112 rejection of claims 21–25. See
Appeal Br. 6 (“Applicant does not concede the correctness of this rejection.
However, the Applicant is willing to amend claims 21–25 pending the
outcome of the appeal.”) Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of § 112
rejection of claims 21–25.

Section 101 Rejection
Appellant does not traverse the § 101 rejection of claims 21–25. See
Appeal Br. 7 (“Applicant does not concede the correctness of this rejection.
However, the Applicant is willing to amend claims 21–25 pending the
outcome of the appeal.”) Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of § 101
rejection of claims 21–25.

Section 103 Rejection
Appellant argues the combination of references does not teach
“compare a sharpness of the first iris image and the second iris image to
identify a selected iris image based on which of the first wavelength or the
second wavelength provided better image sharpness; and enroll the selected
Appeal 2019-001033
Application 14/972,197

4
iris image for subsequent user log in,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8
(emphasis added). In particular, Appellant argues that regarding the use of
different wavelength ranges, Agarwal does not mention anything about
effecting image sharpness. Id. Moreover, Appellant argues, “Agarwal says
nothing about selecting an iris image based on which wavelength produced a
better image sharpness.” Id. Appellant argues that in Agrawal, “the image
sharpness of the images is compared after being captured at different
distances, not different wavelengths of light.” Id. at 9.
The Examiner relies on Agrawal to teach the concept of using
multiple wavelengths to capture iris images. Ans. 4 (citing Agrawal ¶ 36).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Agrawal teaches “operating
in the first mode causes iris illumination with light having a first range of
wavelengths, while operating in the second mode causes iris illumination
with light having a second range of wavelengths that differ from the first
range of wavelengths.” Agrawal ¶ 36. Agrawal explains that because
“regions of the human iris respond differently to different wavelengths of
light, performing iris illumination at different wavelength ranges may yield a
greater amount of useful data than that produced by performing iris
illumination at a single wavelength range.” Id. Agrawal also discusses using
one or both of the first or second mode of outputs for performing an iris
authentication. Ans. 4 (citing Agrawal ¶¶ 31, 32).
Although Appellant argues that “Agarwal says nothing about selecting
an iris image based on which wavelength produced a better image
sharpness” (Appeal Br. 8), we disagree because Agrawal explicitly discusses
that output “selection may be performed in response to determining that its
associated image is of significantly higher quality than that produced using
Appeal 2019-001033
Application 14/972,197

5
the other mode.” Moreover, we also agree with the Examiner that Martin
teaches selecting the best iris image. Ans. 5 (citing Martin, Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 7,
Fig. 2, ¶¶ 129, 130, 153, 182). Although Appellant argues that Martin does
not “provide any details about the iris image capture process,” (Appeal
Br. 10) the Examiner relies on Martin to teach the claimed comparison, not
image capture.
Appellant also argues that Agrawal appears to “teach against” the
claimed technique and that “a person of ordinary skill in the art having
benefit of these references would have no reason combine them in the
manner presently claimed, because Agarwal teaches the use of different
distances, not different light wavelengths, to evaluate the sharpness of ins
images.” Appeal Br. 11.
“[T]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does
not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternative because such
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed . . .” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant
does not identify any portion of Agrawal that criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages the solution claimed. Accordingly, Agrawal does not
teach away from “compar[ing] a sharpness of the first iris image and the
second iris image to identify a selected iris image based on which of the first
wavelength or the second wavelength provided better image sharpness.”
Moreover, the references need not have a precise teaching to combine
Agarwal’s iris imaging at different wavelengths with Martin’s image
sharpness selection to render the claim obvious, for such an addition would
have been within ordinarily skilled artisans’ knowledge when accounting for
Appeal 2019-001033
Application 14/972,197

6
the inferences and creative steps that these artisans would have employed.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references is
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. The Examiner explains that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of record
before him or her, “to modify the user authentication using multiple capture
techniques of Agrawal with Rowe and Martin in order to utilize already
known filter mechanism in the biometric sensing field to filter the
wavelength of illumination light and increase performance of recognition
algorithms that greatly depends on sharpness of the image of the iris to be
identified.” Ans. 5.
Moreover, such a combination is an obvious predictable variation of
known elements. “The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. The
ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton,” would be able to fit the teachings of Agrawal, Martin, and
Rowe together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a system that
compares a sharpness of the first iris image and the second iris image to
identify a selected iris image based on which of the first wavelength or the
second wavelength provided better image sharpness. Id. at 420–21. Because
Appellant has not demonstrated that the proposed combination would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,”
Appeal 2019-001033
Application 14/972,197

7
the proposed modification would have been well within the purview of the
ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 6–10, 13–15,
20, and 21, for which Appellant presents no additional arguments.
We also sustain the rejections of claims 5, 11, 12, 16–19, and 22–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Appellant presents no new arguments for
these claims. See Appeal Br. 12–14.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
21–25 112 21–25
21–25 101 21–25
1, 6–10, 13–15,
20, 21
103 Agrawal,
Rowe, Martin
1, 6–10,
13–15, 20,
21

5, 16–18, 22–
24
103 Agrawal,
Rowe, Martin,
Takeuchi
5, 16–18,
22–24

11 103 Agrawal,
Rowe, Martin,
Feng
11
12, 19, 25 103 Agrawal,
Rowe, Martin,
Hanna
12, 19, 25
Overall
outcome
1 and 5–25
Appeal 2019-001033
Application 14/972,197

8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED