Ex Parte Etchegoyen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2016

12903991 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/903,991
96051 7590
Uniloc USA Inc.
Legacy Town Center
7160 Dallas Parkway
Suite 380
Plano, TX 75024
10/13/2010
03/16/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig S. Etchegoyen
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.
UN-NP-DF-049 5027
EXAMINER
BETIT, JACOB F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2016 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):
sean. burdick@unilocusa.com
tkiatkulpiboone@unilocusa.com
kris.pangan@unilocusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG S. ETCHEGOYEN
Appeal2014-003116
Application 12/903,991
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003116
Application 12/903,991
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
A. THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to "methods and
systems for checking or tracking the identity of distributed computers and
related hardware components." (Spec. i-f 1.)
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method for computer identity tracking, comprising:
generating a baseline machine fingerprint for a client
device having a processor and memory, at least in part by
reading data indicating current configuration states of hardware
making up the client device and processing the data to generate
the baseline machine fingerprint;
storing the baseline machine fingerprint in a database of
stored machine fingerprints;
generating, subsequently, a working machine fingerprint
for the client device, the working machine fingerprint derived
from a portion of the data, the portion determined according to
a sampling protocol and being less than the entirety of the data;
querying the database of stored machine fingerprints
using the working machine fingerprint and the sampling
protocol to determine whether the working machine fingerprint
matches a machine fingerprint previously stored in the
database; and
providing an indication of results from querying the
database.
2
Appeal2014-003116
Application 12/903,991
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Aucsmith
Hughes
Ebert
U.S. 6,148,407
US 2004/005993 8 Al
US 2006/0064756 Al
Nov. 14, 2000
Mar. 25, 2004
Mar. 23, 2006
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ebert and Aucsmith.
Claims 3, 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ebert, Aucsmith, and Hughes.
II. ISSUES
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Ebert and Aucsmith teaches or would have suggested
generating a baseline machine fingerprint and "generating, subsequently, a
working machine fingerprint for the client device, the working machine
fingerprint derived from a portion of the data, the portion determined
according to a sampling protocol and being less than the entirety of the
data." (Claim 1 (emphasis added).)
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Aucsmith
1. Aucsmith discloses a "fingerprinting" process that probabilistically
tests whether a platform is the same one that generated a previously stored
identification (col. 2, 11. 37-56). Aucsmith's Figure 4 is reproduced below:
3
Appeal2014-003116
Application 12/903,991
.-------------------------------
BEGHVN MACHINE
l COMPARE TR./:\IT VALUES 1"0 STORED
j TEMPLATE VAUJES:(;'.'>j ·~ V:;. R;)
[""-NORMAUZE-CO-MPARisoN VALUES(,\;) USING
. TRAlT SPECIFIC PRODUCTlON FUNCTON ff~;)
(SEF e.g.,. flG. 5-B)
'NEJGHT E-'1,Cti NORM.'\UZED VALUE VVITH
A RELATIVE REUABIUTY FACTOR (wi}
•. ·--- 4;;_~5
: __ .... ,_,. 43{)
SUM WEIGHTED VALUES
TO FORM OUTPUT VALUE
n
---~ .. --4&'5
K "'L