Ex Parte Allen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 10, 2017

14859258 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2017)

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.
14/859,258 09/19/2015 Corville O. Allen AUS920140336US2 9704
40412 7590 10/12/2017
IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
EXAMINER
KY, KEVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2017 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):
leslie@vl-patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CORVILLE O. ALLEN, DONNA K. BYRON, and
ANDREW R. FREED
Appeal 2017-006721
Application 14/859,2581
Technology Center 2600
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—9. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006721
Application 14/859,258
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a system
for monitoring a conversation between two entities and identifying deceptive
conversation properties by either entity. Spec. 13. The Specification
describes “vishing” as voice phishing, which is a technique wherein a bad
actor attempts to obtain sensitive information (e.g., a credit card number or a
social security number) from an unsuspecting person. Spec. 12. Thus,
according to the Specification, if the system were monitoring a conversation
between a bad actor and an unsuspecting person, an alert message could be
sent to the unsuspecting person when deceptive conversation properties are
identified. Spec. 13. In a disclosed embodiment, the system monitors a
current conversation and identifies a plurality of information phrases (i.e.,
elements). Spec. | 54. The system will compare the order of the identified
phrases against the order of an appropriate domain-based conversation
pattern to determine if deceptive conversation properties are present (e.g.,
requesting a user’s social security number before verifying a user’s account
number). Spec. 55—57.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics'.
1. A method implemented by an information handling system that
includes a memory and a processor, the method comprising:
generating, by the processor, a plurality of information elements
based upon a voice conversation between a first entity and a second
entity over a communication network;
constructing a current conversation pattern from the plurality of
information elements, wherein the current conversation pattern
specifies an order of the plurality of information elements based upon
the voice conversation;
2
Appeal 2017-006721
Application 14/859,258
identifying one or more deceptive conversation properties of the
current conversation pattern based upon analyzing the order of the
plurality of information elements in the current conversation pattern
against one or more domain-based conversation patterns', and
sending an alert message to the first entity based upon the
identified one or more deceptive conversation properties.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1—8 stand provisionally rejected under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over application no. 14/510,901. Final
Act. 3-10.
2. Claim 9 stands provisionally rejected under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over application no. 14/510,901 and
Zeppenfeld et al. (US 2014/0254778 Al; Sept. 11, 2014) (“Zeppenfeld”).
Final Act. 11—13.
3. Claims 1—5 and 7—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Zeppenfeld and Zeljkovic et al. (US 2013/0097682
Al; Apr. 18, 2013) (“Zeljkovic”). Final Act. 13-20.
4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zeppenfeld, Zeljkovic, and Mamdani et al. (US 6,925,307
Bl; Aug. 2, 2005) (“Mamdani”). Final Act. 21—22.
Issue on Appeal2
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zeppenfeld and
Zeljkovic teaches or suggests “identifying one or more deceptive
conversation properties of the current conversation pattern based upon
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-006721
Application 14/859,258
analyzing the order of the plurality of information elements in the current
conversation pattern against one or more domain-based conversation
patterns,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS3
Rejections under doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s provisional rejections of
claims 1—9 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Appellants have not filed a terminal disclaimer, nor has the Examiner
withdrawn the provisional rejections.
In provisionally rejecting claims 1—9, the Examiner relies on, inter
alia, claims 10-15 of application no. 14/510,901 (“the ’901 application”).
On February 1, 2017, a Notice of Abandonment was mailed regarding the
’901 application because the Applicants did not timely respond to the
Examiner’s Office Action, mailed on July 11, 2016.
“Panels have the flexibility to reach or not reach provisional
obviousness-type double-patenting rejections.” Ex parte Jerg, No. 2011-
000044, 2012 WL 1375142 at *3 (BPAI 2012) (informative); Ex parte
Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We decline to reach
these rejections and, instead, leave it to the Examiner to consider whether, in
the event of further prosecution, these rejections should be maintained. Cf.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
December 9, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed March 24, 2017
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 25, 2017 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed July 11, 2016 (“Final Act.”), from which
this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2017-006721
Application 14/859,258
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 804.1.B, 822.01
(9th ed., Rev. 07.2015, Oct. 2015).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Zeljkovic teaches, inter alia,
identifying one or more deceptive conversation properties of the current
conversation pattern based upon analyzing the order of the plurality of
information elements in the current conversation pattern against one or more
domain-based conversation patterns. Final Act. 14—15 (citing Zeljkovic
11 81—83). Specifically, the Examiner explains the multi-factor
authentication server of Zeljkovic prompts a user to speak multiple phrases
in a particular order and then compares the speech input (i.e., the spoken
multiple phrases in a particular order) with a stored voice print for the user
to determine if the speech input matches the voice print. Ans. 12. Thus,
because the speech input is comprised of phrases “spoken in a particular
order,” the Examiner finds Zeljkovic teaches analyzing the order of the
information elements (i.e., multiple phrases) in the current conversation to
identity one or more deceptive conversation properties (i.e., the speech input
does not match the stored voice print). Ans. 13.
Contrary to the claim limitation of analyzing the order of a plurality of
information elements in a current conversation pattern to identity deceptive
conversation properties, Appellants assert that Zeljkovic teaches
authenticating a user based on a voice print. App. Br. 5—8 (citing Zeljkovic
113, 81—83); Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants contend “Zeljkovic
only mentions an embodiment where a user speaks a few predetermined
phrases in a predetermined order for Zeljkovic to generate an accurate voice
5
Appeal 2017-006721
Application 14/859,258
print for authentication purpose.” App. Br. 6. Further, Appellants contend
Zeljkovic does not analyze the order of the information elements (i.e.,
phrases) but rather evaluates the acoustic properties of speech input. App.
Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 3.
Zeljkovic is generally directed to providing multi-factor
authentication (MFA) of a user. Zeljkovic 13. Zeljkovic discloses that one
of the authentication factors for the MFA service consists of a user’s voice
print. Zeljkovic 3, 19. Zeljkovic describes the MFA service as providing
a multi-factor authentication scheme including two or more authentication
factors from the following categories: “something one has, something one is,
something one knows, something one has done, and somewhere one is
located.” Zeljkovic 125. As an example, Zeljkovic discloses a user’s voice
print may serve as a biometric authentication factor to determine “something
one is” or may be used in connection with a provided password or answer to
determine “something one knows.” Zeljkovic H 28, 31.
Zeljkovic also describes an authentication sever as further comprising
an enrollment module that provides functionality during pre-registration, the
device enrollment, and the voice enrollment procedures. Zeljkovic 138.
Additionally, the authentication server may establish communication with a
speech server for speech recognition and/or speaker verification purposes.
Zeljkovic 142. Zeljkovic describes the speech server may “perform the
speech recognition service to determine whether a speech sample included in
the request matches a voice print previously established for a user.”
Zeljkovic 143; see also Zeljkovic H 44^46 (comparing the received speech
input to a voice print created during a voice enrollment procedure).
6
Appeal 2017-006721
Application 14/859,258
Additionally, Zeljkovic describes the voice enrollment procedure as
comprising a user speaking the answer to a challenge question. Zeljkovic
172. If the answer is correct (from a previous entry), the spoken answer is
recorded as a voice sample and a voice print is created for the user.
Zeljkovic 174. Further, Zeljkovic describes additional voice samples from
the user may be used in order to create a higher quality voice print.
Zeljkovic. 175. Accordingly, the system may prompt the user to speak
other phrases. Zeljkovic 175. After the enrollment process, and during
operation of the authentication process, Zeljkovic describes the
authentication server as generating a sample phrase message “for use in
authenticating the user via voice recognition utilizing the voice print created
during the voice enrollment procedure.” Zeljkovic | 81. Zeljkovic indicates
the sample phrase may be (i) the same phrase used during the voice
enrollment procedure; (ii) a rewording of a challenge question; (iii) multiple
phrases; or (iv) a prompt to the user to speak the multiple phrases in a
particular order. Zeljkovic 181.
Based on our review of Zeljkovic, we agree with Appellants that
although Zeljkovic may prompt a user to speak multiple phrases in a
particular order, the Examiner has not provided sufficient persuasive
evidence or technical explanation that Zeljkovic analyzes the order in which
the phrases were spoken in determining whether there is a match to a stored
voice print associated with the user. Rather, as Appellants suggest,
Zeljkovic uses a speech recognition engine including acoustic and language
models to process the speech input to determine whether there is a match to
a stored voice print. See Zeljkovic H 44-46. Additionally, we note the
Examiner does not rely on Zeppenfeld or Mamdani to teach analyzing the
7
Appeal 2017-006721
Application 14/859,258
order of a plurality of information elements in a current conversation pattern
against one or more domain-based conversation patterns.
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before
us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For
similar reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—9,
which depend therefrom and suffer the same deficiency.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9 under
35U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
8