Ex Parte Brouns et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2018

14655352 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2018)

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.
14/655,352 06/25/2015 Robin Christiaan Antonius Brouns 2011P01484WOUS 1012
24737 7590 01/24/2018
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue NGUYEN, KEVIN M
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2018 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):
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
marianne. fox @ philips, com
katelyn.mulroy @philips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBIN CHRISTIAAN ANTONIUS BROUNS,
BARTEL MARINUS VAN DE SLUIS, and
ROEL PETER GEERT CUPPEN
Appeal 2017-009186
Application 14/655,3521
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1—15. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-009186
Application 14/655,352
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates to “a system for authentication”
employing a multi-touch surface. Spec. 1:3, 1:20. Independent claims 1 and
11 are directed to systems. App. Br. 8—9.
Claim 1 recites:
I. A system for authentication, comprising:
an authentication object provided with a predefined
geometrical pattern for authenticating, and
a multi-touch surface provided with a primary layer and a
secondary layer, which multi-touch surface is configured for
generating in response to the predefined geometrical pattern
being brought into contact with the primary layer a
corresponding pattern of electric interaction between said
primary and secondary layers, such that authentication is based
on said pattern of electric interaction.
Claim 11 recites:
II. A system for authentication, comprising:
an identification card provided with a predefined
geometrical pattern for authenticating, wherein the predefined
geometrical pattern comprises a plurality of protrusions, and
a multi-touch surface provided with a primary layer and a
secondary layer, which multi-touch surface is configured for
generating in response to the predefined geometrical pattern
being brought into contact with the primary layer a
corresponding pattern of electric interaction between said
primary and secondary layers, such that authentication is based
on said pattern of electric interaction.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—3, 5, and 8—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2012/0133484 Al; published May 31,
2
Appeal 2017-009186
Application 14/655,352
2012) and Rytivaara et al. (US 2005/0253817 Al; published Nov. 17, 2005)
(“Rytivaara”). Final Act. 2.2
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Griffin and Kole et al. (US 2013/0052947 Al; published Feb. 28,
2013) . Final Act. 6.3
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Griffin and Os et al. (US 2011/0296508 Al; published
Dec. 1, 2011) (“Os”). Final Act. 7.4
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee (US 2011/0108625 Al; published May 12, 2011) and Moberg et al.
(US 2013/0194202 Al; published Aug. 1, 2013) (“Moberg”). Final Act. 8.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee, Moberg, and Sands et al. (US 2013/0208103 Al; published Aug.
15, 2013) (“Sands”). Final Act. 10.
Claims 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee, Moberg, and Sung (US 2013/0069908 Al; published
Mar. 21, 2013). FinalAct.il.
2 The Examiner’s statement of rejection describes claim 8 as rejected over
Griffin and Rytivaara. Final Act. 2. However, dependent claim 7, upon
which claim 8 depends, is rejected under Griffin and Os. Final Act. 7.
Dependent claim 8 should be rejected under Griffin, Rytivaara, and Os.
3 The Examiner’s statement of rejection describes claim 4 as rejected over
Griffin and Kole. Final Act. 6. However, independent claim 1, upon which
claim 4 depends, is rejected under Griffin and Rytivaara. Final Act. 2.
Dependent claim 4 should be rejected under Griffin, Rytivaara, and Kole.
4 The Examiner’s statement of rejection describes claims 6 and 7 as rejected
over Griffin and Os. Final Act. 7. However, independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 5, upon which claims 6 and 7 depend, are rejected under
Griffin and Rytivaara. Final Act. 2. Dependent claims 6 and 7 should be
rejected under Griffin, Rytivaara, and Os.
3
Appeal 2017-009186
Application 14/655,352
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—10
Claim 1 recites “an authentication object provided with a predefined
geometrical pattern for authenticating’'' and a “multi-touch surface is
configured for generating in response to the predefined geometrical pattern
being brought into contact with the primary layer a corresponding pattern of
electric interaction . . . such that authentication is based on said pattern of
electric interaction” (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Griffin’s user’s digit or stylus contacting the first
layer of the touch screen teaches an object contacting the first layer of the
touch screen for authenticating, which teaches “the predefined polygons
being brought into contact with the first layer of the capacitive touch screen
for authenticating.” Ans. 4; see Ans. 3 (citing Griffin || 81—92, 95); see
also Final Act. 3^4 (citing Griffin ]f]f 81—82, 95, 99). The Examiner further
finds Rytivaara’s selectable contact areas for authentication teaches
predefined images, symbols, and photos being brought into contact with the
primary layer. Ans. 4—5 (citing Rytivaara 1 17); see Final Act. 4 (citing
Rytivaara 140). We disagree with this interpretation.
The claimed invention requires that “an authentication object” is
“provided with a predefined geometrical pattern for authenticating” and that
authentication is “in response to the predefined geometrical pattern being
brought into contact with the primary layer” of a multi-touch surface.
Appellants’ Specification details examples of how a geometrical pattern for
authenticating is brought into contact with a primary layer. Spec. 6:19-24,
7:11—14, 8:9-16, 9:6—9. The examples include the authentication object
being incorporated into an identification card containing a tactile profile that
4
Appeal 2017-009186
Application 14/655,352
contacts the multi-touch screen. Spec. 8:9—16. We find that the claimed
geometric pattern being provided to an authentication object and being
brought into contact with the multi-touch screen’s primary layer, in light of
Appellants’ Specification, is distinguished from a touch that completes a
geometric pattern for the purposes of authenticating.
Here, we agree with Appellants that Griffin and Rytivaara teach that
the device is unlocked “when the primary layer is touched by an object,
without the geometrical pattern, at a given path.” Reply Br. 3. Griffin
teaches a user input (“tracking the position of a user’s digit or a stylus”) that
is brought into contact with the primary layer of the touch screen and draws
the correct geometrical pattern for authenticating (“preset path may have
been previously defined by the user as a password symbol”). Griffin 199.
Rytivaara teaches determining if user input brought into contact with the
touch screen (“a touch is detected and it is directed to a predetermined
contact area”) draws the correct geometrical pattern for authenticating
(“contact areas intended to deactivate the screen lock state”). Rytivaara
140. We find Griffin and Rytivaara both provide contacting the touch
screen with a user input, and using that user input to execute the geometrical
pattern for authenticating, but neither Griffin nor Rytivaara teaches
contacting the touch screen with a user input that is provided with the
geometrical pattern. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that
Griffin and Rytivaara teaches that “an authentication object” is “provided
with a predefined geometrical pattern for authenticating” that is “brought
5
Appeal 2017-009186
Application 14/655,352
into contact with the primary layer” of a multi-touch surface, as required by
claim l.5
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants regarding claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’
other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1—10.
Claims 11—15
Claim 11 recites “an identification card provided with a predefined
geometrical pattern for authenticating, wherein the predefined geometrical
pattern comprises a plurality of protrusions’ '' and a “multi-touch surface is
configured for generating in response to the predefined geometrical pattern
being brought into contact with the primary layer a corresponding pattern of
electric interaction . . . such that authentication is based on said pattern of
electric interaction.”
The Examiner finds Lee teaches use of an ID card for verifying
identification for authenticating software, and the ID card includes a number
of zones where protrusions corresponding to code information are formed.
5 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner is free to consider
whether claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lee and Moberg,
under grounds of rejection similar to the Examiner’s findings for claim 11.
See Final Act. 8. “The Board’s reversal of a rejection should not be
interpreted as an instruction to the Examiner to allow the claims so rejected.
The Board’s primary role is to review the adverse decision as presented by
the Examiner, and not to conduct its own separate examination of the
claims” and “no inference should be drawn” from the Board declining to
exercise its discretion to institute a new grounds of rejections itself. MPEP
§ 1213.02 (Rev. Nov. 2013) (citation omitted).
6
Appeal 2017-009186
Application 14/655,352
Final Act. 9 (citing Lee 27, 89). The Examiner finds claim 11 requires
that the geometrical pattern is for authenticating and “comprises a plurality
of protrusions,” but claim 11 does not require that “the protrusions are laid
out in a predefined geometrical pattern.” Ans. 6—7.
Appellants contend Lee’s protrusions are recognized by the touch
screen for authentication, rather than Lee’s print information which includes
printed characters, symbols, and images. Reply Br. 5; see App. Br. 5.
Appellants argue that Lee does not have protrusions laid out in a predefined
geometrical pattern. App. Br. 5.
Appellants’ Specification describes geometrical patterns including, for
example, various shapes, ellipses, pentagons, and dots arranged in
predefined manners. Spec. 6:25—7:8. Thus, Appellants’Specification
provides non-limiting examples that the claimed “predefined geometrical
pattern for authenticating” that “comprises a plurality of protrusions”
encompasses dots arranged in a predefined manner that comprises
protrusions.
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 6—7), Lee teaches that a “variety of
print information relating to characteristics of the contact card 100, such as
characters, symbols, and images (pictures) may be printed on the front of the
contact card 100” and the “contact card 100 according to an embodiment of
the present invention has protrusions 110_1 and 110_2 in [] protrusion
zones corresponding to characteristic information, on the back, in order to
represent characteristic information relating to the print information printed
on the front of the contact card.” Lee 29—30. Lee further discloses that
“the protrusions 110_1 and 110_2 on the back of the contact card 100 are
formed in predetermined zones by the method that is determined in advance
7
Appeal 2017-009186
Application 14/655,352
in accordance with the print information printed on the front of the contact
card 100” and “the characteristic information relating to print information
and the characteristic information of the contact card 100 depends on the
positions of the protrusions.'''’ Lee 133 (emphases added); see Lee Fig. 2. In
other words, Lee teaches an ID card with characteristic information
represented by dot protrusions in specific zones to identify its characteristic
information and associated print information.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the claimed
“geometrical pattern for authenticating” that “comprises a plurality of
protrusions” is taught by Lee’s protrusions that are dots protruding in
different specific zones to identify the characteristic information. Appellants
have not provided persuasive argument or evidence to rebut the Examiner’s
findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection for
independent claim 11, as well as for dependent claims 12—15, not separately
argued. See App. Br. 6.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10 are reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 11—15 are affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8