DANISEVSKIS, Janis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 20, 2020

14653858 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2020)

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.
14/653,858 06/19/2015 Janis DANISEVSKIS 814855 9967
95683 7590 02/20/2020
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
EXAMINER
MEROUAN, ABDERRAHIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2020 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JANIS DANISEVSKIS
Appeal 2017-011371
Application 14/653,858
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 8, 11, and 12, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. An oral hearing was held September 26, 2019.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Deutsche Telekom
AG. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011371
Application 14/653,858

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to forgery-proof, secure
transactions, and preventing attacks such as phishing. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. In
particular, the invention relates to a “framebuffer overlay” implemented in
hardware, for “displaying a forgery-proof identity indicator.” Id. ¶ 2.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention
and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A method for displaying a secure or forgery-proof identity
indicator on a screen, the method comprising:
storing a graphic corresponding to a client application to
be displayed on the screen into a client-specific buffer of a
memory of a hardware graphic circuit;
storing an identity indicator belonging to the client
application into a secure buffer of the memory of the hardware
graphic circuit, the secure buffer being separate from the client-
specific buffer;
displaying the graphic from the client-specific buffer on
the screen using a display controller of the hardware graphic
circuit; and
simultaneously displaying the identity indicator from the
secure buffer on the screen using an overlay functionality of the
display controller;
wherein access to the secure buffer for displaying the
identity indicator is restricted except to the display controller to
facilitate secure or forgery-proof display of the identity
indicator.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Appeal 2017-011371
Application 14/653,858

3
Name Reference Date
Gough et al. (“Gough”) US 5,949,432 Iss. Sept. 7, 1999
Lapp et al. (“Lapp”) US 2003/0212833 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
Zisapel et al. (“Zisapel”) US 2013/0283373 A1 Oct. 24, 2013
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gough and Zisapel. Final Act. 2–4.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gough, Zisapel, and Lapp. Final Act. 4–6.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the following reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of
error.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests storing an identity indicator into a secure buffer that is “separate
from the client-specific buffer,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 3–5
(emphasis added); Reply Br. 2–3. Specifically, Appellant contends Gough
merely teaches a “passive translucent image [which] may be overlaid on an
underlying opaque window,” while Zisapel teaches routing traffic depending
upon whether originating from a trusted or untrusted server. App. Br. 3–6.
Additionally, Appellant contends the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
rationale for combining Gough with Zisapel. We are persuaded by
Appellant’s argument regarding rationale to combine and, therefore, we need
not reach the other arguments.
Appeal 2017-011371
Application 14/653,858

4
The Examiner relies on Gough and Zisapel in rejecting claim 1.
Gough is directed to “producing a translucent image over a base image
created on a display screen,” in order to optimize display screen usage in
limited displays. Gough Abstract, 2:25–42. The Examiner finds Gough
teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1 except “the secure buffer
being separate from the client-specific buffer.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner
finds this limitation in Zisapel, which relates to “separation of [network]
traffic” in order to reduce vulnerability to “malicious attacks.” Id. (citing
Zisapel Abstract, Fig. 1); Zisapel Abstract, ¶¶ 2–3, 10. In combining the
references, the Examiner reasons:
Zisapel is analogous art with respect to Gough because they are
from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing. At
the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to include the process of
separating the secure buffer from the client-specific buffer, as
taught by Zisapel into the teaching of Gough. The suggestion
for doing so would provide increased security and make it more
difficult for one to obtain access to the secured area. Therefore,
it would have been obvious to combine Zisapel with Gough.
Final Act. 3–4 (emphasis added).
We do not find adequate support in the record for the foregoing
findings. First, Zisapel (like Appellant’s invention) relates to security, not
“image processing.” Specifically, Zisapel is directed to “separation of traffic
processing in a computing farm.” Zisapel Abstract (emphasis added).
Gough, in contrast, relates to the unrelated field of overlaying images on a
Appeal 2017-011371
Application 14/653,858

5
computer display in order to optimize use of display space.2 Gough
Abstract, Figs. 3c, 3d, 2:40–50. The Examiner points to no teachings in
Gough, and we discern none, relating to computer security. Although the
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
to incorporate the security features of Zisapel (separating network traffic)
into the image display process of Gough, the Examiner has not explained
any basis for this finding – particularly in light of the disparate nature of the
references. On this record, the Examiner has not adequately identified why
a person of ordinary skill would look to a “computer farm network
processing” invention when modifying the image display of Gough.
Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements, but rather, must be explained by “articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has not articulated a
sufficient rationale for combining Gough and Zisapel. We, therefore, are
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over
Gough and Zisapel, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we are persuaded of error regarding claims 2–4,
6, and 8, all of which depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 12 include the same disputed limitations as claim

2 Appellant does not directly argue that Gough constitutes non-analogous art.
See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (a prior art reference
is analogous to Appellant’s application if it is “from the same field of
endeavor” or if it is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved.”). We make no finding on this issue, and
reverse on other grounds as explained herein.
Appeal 2017-011371
Application 14/653,858

6
1, and were rejected on the same basis. For the reasons set forth above, we
also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2–4, 6, 8, 11 and 12.
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 8,
11, 12
103 Gough, Zisapel 1, 2, 6, 8,
11, 12
3, 4 103 Gough, Zisapel,
Lapp
3, 4
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 8,
11, 12

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6, 8, 11, and
12.
REVERSED