Ex Parte Connell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2015

12196400 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/196,400 08/22/2008
49267 7590 12/23/2015
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 302
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan H. Connell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
YOR920080305US 1(163-258) 1293
EXAMINER
PATEL, JAYESH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2669
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN H. CONNELL, NALINI K. RA THA,
and JINYU ZUO
Technology Center 2600
Appeal2014-000522
Application 12/196,400
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-25, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-000522
Application 12/196,400
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is generally directed to improving security by
providing cancelable biometrics, including iris scans. Spec. i-f 1. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method for generating a cancelable biometric,
compnsmg:
providing at least one texture image as at least one image
pattern;
combining the at least one image pattern with a biometric
image by employing a transform pixel operation on a computer
readable storage medium to combine pixels of the at least one
image pattern with the biometric image and generate a
transformed enrollment such that information about the
transform pixel operation and the at least one image pattern
form a security key for protecting the biometric image; and
if a ne\~1 security key is needed, reusing the biometric
image to generate the new security key to permit a previous
security key to be cancelable.
References
Flom us 4,641,349 Feb.3, 1987
Polcha US 2006/0136743 Al June 22, 2006
Bolle US 2009/0175513 Al July 9, 2009
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Jan. 24, 2013 ("Final
Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Apr. 23, 2013 ("App. Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed July 24, 2013 ("Ans."), and the original
Specification filed Aug. 22, 2008 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-000522
Application 12/196,400
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2 and 5-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bolle and Polcha.
Claims 3, 4, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bolle, Polch, and Flom.
Issues
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present us with the
following issues:
1. Does Polcha teach or suggest "providing at least one texture
image as at least one image pattern," as recited in claims 1 and
12 and similarly recited in claim 19?
2. Does the combination of Bolle and Polcha teach or suggest the
limitation employing a transform pixel operation "to combine
pixels of the at least one image pattern with the biometric
image," as recited in claims 1 and 12 and similarly recited in
claim 19?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 10-21) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments. Unless otherwise noted, we adopt
as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office
Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4--9) and in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 12-17),
and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we
consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief.
3
Appeal2014-000522
Application 12/196,400
Regarding issue 1, Appellants contend the portions of Polcha cited by
the Examiner fail to teach or suggest "providing at least one texture image as
at least one image pattern." App. Br. 13. In particular, Appellants argue the
cited portions of Polcha discuss applying masking patterns using a
fingerpiece to physically mask the fingerprint and that the masking pattern in
Polcha is not even an image. Id. at 13-14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, although Polcha discloses physical mask patterns (see Figures
6A-F), Polcha also discloses scanning the fingerprint with the mask pattern.
Ans. 14 (citing Polcha i-f 62). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, it is
the scanning of the Figures 6A-F areas of the images possessing the
captured physical mask pattern that teaches "providing at least one texture
image as at least one image pattern." Id. Accordingly, we find no error with
the Examiner's reliance on Polcha as teaching "providing at least one texture
image as at least one image pattern," as recited in claims 1 and 12 and
similarly recited in claim 19.
Regarding issue 2, Appellants argue neither the cited portions of
Polcha nor the cited portions of Bolle teach or suggest the limitation
"combine pixels of the at least one image pattern with the biometric image."
App. Br. 14--17. These arguments are not persuasive because they attack the
references individually and fail to address the combination of Polcha and
Bolle, which is relied on by the Examiner in rejecting the claims. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.").
Appellants also argue:
4
Appeal2014-000522
Application 12/196,400
[e]ven assuming arguendo Polcha discloses an "image pattern,"
the combination of Bolle and Polcha would not result in the
disputed limitation. Rather, the cited combination would
merely use the image pattern to indicate how the features of the
biometric image should be replotted. For example, paragraph
[0061] of Bolle explains: "In the distortion step, the feature
points are re-plotted using a random projection." There is no
teaching or suggestion in the cited combination to "combine
pixels of the at least one image pattern with the biometric
image," as in claims 1, 12 and 19.
App. Br. 17-18.
The Examiner finds, as discussed supra, Polcha teaches "at least one
image pattern." Ans. 15. The Examiner finds Bolle teaches providing at
least one pattern. Id. (citing Bolle, Fig. 1, item 108; i-f 61). In regard to
Bolle combining this pattern with a biometric image, the Examiner finds as
follows:
Bolle discloses combining the at least one pattern (Bolle at
i-f006 l; particular distortion transform at Fig. 1, item l 08) \vith a
biometric image (Fig. 4, item 410 taken from a user's
fingerprint; Fig. 3, item 302) by employing a transform pixel
operation (Fig. 1, items 102, 104, 106) on a computer readable
storage medium (i-f 0014) to combine a transform (Fig. 8; i-fi-1
0061-0068) of the at least one pattern with pixels of the
biometric image to generate a transformed enrollment (i-fi-1 003 8-
0039). The distortion comprises a "projection matrix [[is]] in
the form of random orthonormal axes are axes that comprise
random points of origin and random angles. These axes
may be used to generate distorted patch projections." (i-f 0039).
Ans. 16.
The Examiner further finds that "[ r ]eplacing the projection matrix [of
Bolle] with pixels from a mask pattern image [as taught by Polcha] would
5
Appeal2014-000522
Application 12/196,400
then 'combine pixels' between the biometric image and mask pattern
image." Id. We agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the
teachings of Polcha and Bolle. We also agree with the Examiner's finding
that combining Bolle and Polcha by replacing the projection matrix of Bolle
with the mask pattern image of Polcha teaches or suggests the limitation
employing a transform pixel operation to "combine pixels of the at least one
image pattern with the biometric image."
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to
rebut the Examiner's findings. Thus, we do not find error (1) in the
Examiner's finding that the combination of Bolle and Polcha teaches or
suggests the limitation in dispute and (2) in the Examiner's conclusion that
the combination ofBolle and Polcha renders claims 1, 12, and 19 obvious.
See Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 12, and 19, and dependent claims 2, 5-11, 13-18, and
20-24, which are not argued separately.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 25, Appellants argue Flom fails to cure the
deficiencies of Bolle and Polcha and, because these claims depend from
either one of claims 1 and 19, they are patentable for the same reasons as
claims 1 and 19. For the reasons discussed supra, we have concluded there
are no deficiencies in the combined teachings of Bolle and Polcha with
respect to the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 19. Thus, we also sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, and 25.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2014-000522
Application 12/196,400
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
PS
7