Ex Parte Knight et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11436080 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN M. KNIGHT and ALI M. VASSIGH
____________

Appeal 2010-008941
Application 11/436,080
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 2-8 and 10-22, which are all the claims pending in this application as
claims 1 and 9 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-008941
Application 11/436,080

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for personalizing a user
interface for an appliance by identifying the user based on one or more
biometric characteristics of the user (see Spec. ¶¶ [0001] and [0005]). Claim
15, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
15. A method for personalizing the operation of an
appliance comprising a controller for controlling one or
more functions of the appliance and a user interface
operably coupled to the controller through which a user
can select the one or more functions of the appliance, the
method comprising:
establishing predetermined demographic classes of
users based on biometric characteristics;
establishing a standard interface template for each
of the demographic classes;
detecting one or more biometric characteristics of
the user;
passively identifying the user from the one or more
biometric characteristics;
assigning to the user one of the demographic
classes based on the passive identification;
displaying the standard interface template for the
assigned demographic class to the user; and
forming a user-specific interface for the user by
customizing the standard interface template.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reitmeier (US 2004/0160335 A1) and
Chang (US 2006/0093097 A1). (See Ans. 3-10).
Appeal 2010-008941
Application 11/436,080

3
Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reitmeier, Chang, and Holtz (US 2003/0001880 A1).
(See Ans. 10-12).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. With respect to independent claim 15, Appellants contend that
the combination of Reitmeier and Chang does not teach or suggest all the
recited features because Reitmeier includes no disclosure of: a) “establishing
predetermined demographic classes of users based on biometric
characteristics” (App. Br. 6); b) “establishing a standard interface template
for each of the demographic classes” (id.); and c) displaying the interface
template for the demographic class assigned to the user (App. Br. 7).
2. Appellants further assert that the proposed combination of
Reitmeier and Chang is improper based on the failure of Chang to remedy
the above-mentioned deficiencies of Reitmeier (id.) and Reitmeier’s
requirement for recognizing the user individually in contrast with Chang’s
single template that is modified with the caller information (App. Br. 7-8).
3. Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 21 by
repeating the same arguments raised for claim 15 and the patentability of the
remaining dependent claims by relying on the contentions made for their
respective base claims (App. Br. 9-14), allowing these claims to fall with
representative claim 15.
Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Reitmeier and Chang because the combination of references does not teach
or suggest the disputed features recited in claim 15?

Appeal 2010-008941
Application 11/436,080

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief (see Ans. 12-15). However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
With respect to the above contention 1, as explained by the Examiner
(Ans. 12), Reitmeier’s disclosure in paragraphs 6 and 13 includes assigning
different authorization levels to the users based on the detected fingerprints
or other biometric characteristics. We agree with the Examiner that using
fingerprints to passively identify the user is not precluded by the claim
recitation because a fingerprint, consistent with the disclosure in paragraph 8
of Appellants’ Specification, is disclosed as one of the biometric
characteristics used for passively identifying the user. Therefore, contrary to
Appellants’ contentions (Reply Br. 3-4), Reitmeier does detect one of the
user’s biometric characteristics, such as the fingerprint, and assigns the user
to one of several user levels based on the detected biometric data of the user
(see Reitmeier, ¶ [0006]). As further pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 13-
14), different authorization levels having different range of functions may be
assigned to categories of users, such as adults and children, based on the
biometric recognition of the user (see Reitmeier, ¶ [0013]).
Regarding Appellants’ above contention 2, we further agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 14) that modifying Reitmeier with the teaching
of Chang related to passively identifying the user would have been obvious
Appeal 2010-008941
Application 11/436,080

5
and not contrary to the teachings of Reitmeier. In other words, while
Reitmeier uses a fingerprint for identifying a user and assigning the user to a
specific user level, detecting other biometric characteristics such as voice or
other passive identification disclosed in Chang would have been obvious and
available to the skilled artisan as a known way for identifying and assigning
a user to a demographic class. As stated by the Supreme Court, “the
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Alternatively stated, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
Therefore, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination
of Chang with Reitmeier would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art all the limitations of independent claim 15.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner has not
erred in rejecting claim 15 as being obvious over Reitmeier and Chang.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 15 and of
claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-22 falling therewith.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2-8 and 10-22 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2010-008941
Application 11/436,080

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj