Ex Parte Buffum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2017

13680938 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 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.
13/680,938 11/19/2012 Chuck Buffum EMC-07-426(PRO)(ORD)CON1 8532
80167 7590 10/26/2017
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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):
ny office @ rml-law. com
jbr@rml-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUCK BUFFUM, JARED LEVY, NATHANIEL CALVIN,
CRAIG GOULD, JEFF KING, and DAVID LIPIN1
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON and
LARRY J. HUME Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 14, and 16
through 20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a system for biometrically
securing business transactions uses speech recognition and voiceprint
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
authentication to biometrically secure a transaction from a variety of client
devices in a variety of media. See Abstract of Appellants’ Invention.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A system for securing a transaction, comprising:
an authentication server configured to:
receive a request to authenticate an enrolled user of a
client device based on a voiceprint of said user from a third
party other than said user, said request comprising an
identification of said user and a network address of said
client device;
instruct said client device at said network address to
instantiate an interactive signature collection applet
configured to present to said user a random signature string
and record said random signature string as the user speaks
said random signature string;
receive said recorded signature string from said
interactive signature collection applet; recognize said
recorded signature string;
compare said recorded signature string with a stored
voiceprint of said user; and
authenticate or reject said user based on a result of
said comparison; and wherein said random signature string
is generated subsequent to said authentication server
receiving said request.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is EMC Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
2
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, and 16 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weideman (U.S. 6,292,782
Bl, iss. Sep. 18, 2001) and San Martin (U.S. 6,681,205 Bl, iss. Jan, 2004).
Answer 3—8.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, and 9 through 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) unpatentable over Weideman, San Martin and Crane (U.S.
6,510,236 Bl, iss. Jan 21, 2003). Answer 8—12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However,
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 14, and 17 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
ISSUES
Claim 1
Appellants argue on pages 5 through 8 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error: These arguments present us with
the issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Weideman and
San Martin teach the request to authenticate an enrolled user is from a third
party other than said user?
3
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
Claim 16
Appellants argue on page 8 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 16 is in error: These arguments present us with the issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Weideman and San
Martin teach the system initiates a telephone call to the client device as
recited in claim 16?
Claim 17
Appellants argue on pages 9 and 10 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 is in error. These arguments present us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Weideman and San Martin teach or suggest a dialog box on a client device
to present a signature string to the user as recited in claim 17?
Claim 7
Appellants argue on pages 10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is in error: These arguments present us with
the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Weideman,
San Martin and Crane teach a device configuration as recited in claim 7?
Claim 9
Appellants argue on pages 12 and 13 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is in error: These arguments present us with
the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Weideman,
San Martin and Crane teach gathering a device signature as recited in
claim 9?
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed December 11,
2014; Reply Br., filed July 15, 2015; Final Action mailed July 14, 2014, and
Footnote continued on next page.
4
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
DECISION
Claim 1 / New Rejection
Appellants argue claim 1 recites a request to authenticate an enrolled
user from a third party other than said user. App. Br. 5. Appellants argue
“Weideman describes a system including first and second network computer
systems, wherein a request for a transaction is received from the user of the
first network computer system, not a third party other than the user.” App.
Br. 6.
The Examiner provides a detailed response interpreting the term
“party” as “any entity belonging to a grouping or participating within an
event”. Ans. 5. Based upon this interpretation of the claim, the Examiner
considers Weideman’s disclosure of the user’s request being formatted by a
client device and processed through the Internet (which consists of
connecting networks) as teaching the request being received by a third party
(considering the user the first party, the receiving server, the second server
and the client software and internet as the third party). Ans. 6.
We concur with the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “party,” and
the finding that Weideman teaches the request comes from a third party.
However, we do not agree with the Examiner’s rationale that the client and
the Internet are a third party (the claim recites that the request is from a party
other than the user and use of the internet or a client does not change the
source of the request, rather just the intermediary of the communication
chain). However, as seen in Weideman’s Figure 4b, and accompanying
description in col. 6, lines 33 through 44, the request for verification comes
the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on May 19, 2015.
5
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
from merchant 94 (third party), to the gateway server (second party) for
verification of the user (first party). In combination with the other teachings
cited by the Examiner, we consider the limitations of claim 1 to be obvious.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 1 have not persuaded us the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error, because the combination of the
references does not teach or suggest that the request comes from a third
party. As this rationale differs from the Examiner’s rationale, we designate
this rejection as a new rejection.
Claim 16
Appellants argue claim 1 recites the system initiates a telephone call
to the client device which is not taught by the combination of Weideman and
San Martin. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue San Martin, which the Examiner
relies upon to teach this limitation, teaches the user calls the system not the
other way around. Id.
The Examiner interprets the term call as “to use a connection between
two stations.” Ans. 9 (citing Newton Telecom Dictionary). Based upon this
interpretation the Examiner states:
Thus, in view of the breadth of scope for the term “call”, the
examiner believes that the prior art teaches a server apparatus
that sends data over a telephonic connection to a user device
(i.e. “initiates” or makes “use [of] a connection between two
stations”) so as to prompt the user to speak phrase for voice
verification (e.g. San Martin, 3:50-67).
Ans. 9.
We concur with the Appellants and disagree with the Examiner.
Claim 16 recites the system initiates the telephone call. While a call in San
Martin may be between two stations, as claimed, the Examiner has not
shown that the system for secure transaction initiates (causes to begin) a call
6
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
to a user as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 16.
Claim 17
Appellants argue claim 17 recites a rendering a dialog box on a client
device to present a random signature string to the user which is not taught by
the combination of Weideman and San Martin. App. Br. 9—10. Further,
Appellants argue that the Examiners’ finding that San Martin’s use of web
browser does not to teach the claimed dialog box. Appellants’ state:
A web browser, however, is not limited to presenting visual
information. Instead, web browsers may also present audio
information. Weideman at column 3, lines 35—36 states that
“[o]nce the speech feature application 20 is ready, the user is
prompted to speak a key phrase.” Weideman does not disclose
that the speech feature application 20 visually prompts the user
to speak a key phrase. San Martin fails to remedy the above-
noted deficiencies of Weideman.
Reply Br. 6—7.
The Examiner has provided a detailed response to Appellants’
augment finding that Weideman teaches the use of a web browser. Further,
the Examiner finds web browsers are visual and use of a web browser would
have suggested to the skilled artisan use of a visual prompt (dialog box) with
the phrase to speak. Ans. 10.
We concur with the Examiner that Weideman’s use of a web browser,
which typically includes a visual interface, would suggest using a text box as
claimed. While we recognize a web browser may also present audio
information, as argued by Appellants, it does not negate the Examiner’s
finding that the use of visual information would be obvious. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
7
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
Claim 7
Appellants argue claim 7 recites the authentication server receives
several pieces of data including a device configuration which is not taught
by the combination of Weideman, San Martin and Crane. App. Br. 10.
Specifically Appellants state:
Crane describes an authentication method which begins by
having a client pass to an application server a request for
authentication including a user id and device id identifying a
client and an authentication device coupled thereto. See also
Crane at column 2, lines 29—38 and column 3, line 47 to column
4, line 10. Crane does not describe receiving a request by
receiving signaling comprising a device configuration as recited
in claim 7.
App. Br. 11.
The Examiner responds, recognizing Crane does not use the term
“device configuration,” but construes Crane’s data identifying the device as
the claimed device configuration. Ans. 12. The Examiner reasons Crane is
concerned with using the device identifying data as a way to identify the
models and format of data provided by the device, which is the purpose of
the claimed device configuration data. Ans. 12. We concur with the
Examiner as we consider equating the device identifying data to the “device
configuration” to be reasonable. Appellants’ Specification does not define
“device configuration”, as such we construe it with its plain meaning of
information identifying a devices’ configuration. Crane’s data identifying
the device, meets this as discussed by the Examiner. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
8
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
Claim 9
Appellants argue claim 9 recites gathering a device signature by
reading a configuration of the client device which is not taught by
Weideman. Ans. 11—12.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments stating:
Crane, not Weideman, was relied upon to teach that the voice
verification software should gather a “device signature” by
reading a configuration of the client and send such data to the
server. The examiner further notes that in view of the
combination with Weideman, the voice verification software is
the applet within the user’s browser.
Ans. 13—14. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error as they
have only addressed one of the references cited by the Examiner and have
not addressed the Examiner’s findings with regard to Crane in combination
with the other references teaching the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
CONCLUSION
As our rationale differs from the Examiner, we designate the
rejections of claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 14, and 16 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, as a new ground of rejection.
This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This section provides “[a] new ground of rejection . . .
shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also
provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
9
Appeal 2015-006863
Application 13/680,938
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the
opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R, 41.50(b)
10