Ex Parte Muttik et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2019

14498287 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/498,287 09/26/2014 Igor Muttik
149052 7590 02/28/2019
HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC (McAfee)
150 S. WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 2200
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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.
P68535 8555
EXAMINER
LAM, YEEF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
docketing@hfzlaw.com
jflight@hfzlaw.com
pcesarz@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IGOR MUTTIK and MARTIN STECHER
Appeal2018-004571
Application 14/498,287 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, 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, 2, 4, 5, and 7-25. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to techniques for making identity
determinations based upon detection of collections of wearable devices.
Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A non-transitory machine readable medium, on
which are stored instructions for recognizing a person by a
1 According to Appellants, McAfee, Inc. is the real party in interest. Br. 3.
2 Claims 3 and 6 are cancelled. Br. 14--15.
Appeal2018-004571
Application 14/498,287
programmable device, compnsmg instructions that when
executed cause the programmable device to:
detect signals from a first plurality of wearable devices
proximate with or disposed on an unknown person;
generate a first body area network fingerprint of the first
plurality of wearable devices corresponding to the detected
signals, wherein the detected signals are analyzed without
interpreting data payloads carried by the detected signals; and
match the first body area network fingerprint with a
second body area network fingerprint associated with a second
plurality of wearable devices, wherein the second plurality of
wearable devices is associated with a known person.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Utter (US 2013/0004923 Al;
published Jan. 3, 2013) and Asano (US 2008/0209545 Al; published Aug.
28, 2008). Ans. 2-9.
ANALYSIS
I. Utter Teaches "without interpreting data payloads carried by the
detected signals" recited in Claims 1, 15, and 18 (and similarly recited in
claim 10)
The Examiner finds Utter teaches evaluating data from personal
wearable data capture devices to identify a specific individual user such as
by recognizing a unique pattern of behavior, biometric responses, an
individual person's gait, etc., which the Examiner maps to the limitation
"wherein the detected signals are analyzed without interpreting data
payloads carried by the detected signals" recited in claim 1. Ans. 12-13
(citing Utter ,r 42). Also, the Examiner finds Utter's teaching of pattern
recognition is consistent with Appellants' Specification, which states
"sensors used to collect data from the BAN 100 and the analysis unit 230 do
2
Appeal2018-004571
Application 14/498,287
not need to be capable of interpreting the data that is communicated by the
wearable devices. Instead, analysis unit 230 may recognize patterns in the
communications received by the sensors 210 and 220." Ans. 10-12 (citing
Spec. ,r 20).
Appellants argue Utter fails to teach the limitation "without
interpreting data payloads carried by the detected signals" recited in claim 1
because Utter evaluates captured data and the Examiner improperly imports
claim limitations from the Specification to narrowly interpret the claim. Br.
8-10.
At the outset, we note that the Examiner makes a new finding in the
Answer by relying on Utter's teaching of pattern recognition being
consistent with paragraph 20 Appellants' Specification for the first time.
Compare Final Act. 2--4, 8-10 (see analysis of claim 1 lacking discussion of
Utter's recognizing a unique pattern of behavior, biometric responses, an
individual person's gait, etc. and correlating Utter's teaching to Appellants'
analysis unit 230 recognizing patterns in the communications received by
the sensors 210 and 220) with Ans. 10-13 (citing Utter ,r 42; Spec. ,r 20).
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's new finding because they did not file
a Reply Brief.
Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Utter teaches
evaluating data from personal wearable data capture devices to identify a
specific individual user such as by recognizing a unique pattern of behavior,
biometric responses, an individual person's gait, etc., which teaches the
limitation "wherein the detected signals are analyzed without interpreting
data payloads carried by the detected signals" recited in claims 1, 15, and 18
(and similarly recited in claim 10). Ans. 12-13 (citing Utter ,r 42). Also, we
3
Appeal2018-004571
Application 14/498,287
agree that Utter's teaching of pattern recognition is consistent with
Appellants' Specification, which states "sensors used to collect data from the
BAN 100 and the analysis unit 230 do not need to be capable of interpreting
the data that is communicated by the wearable devices. Instead, analysis
unit 230 may recognize patterns in the communications received by the
sensors 210 and 220." Ans. 10-12 (citing Spec. ,r 20).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Utter teaches
the limitation "wherein the detected signals are analyzed without interpreting
data payloads carried by the detected signals" recited in claims 1, 15, and 18
(and similarly recited in claim 10).
II. Utter Teaches "networkfingerprint" recited in Claim 1 (and similarly
recited in claims 10, 15, and 18)
The Examiner finds Utter teaches biometric information and
signatures about a user, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
"generat[ing] a first body area network fingerprint of the first plurality of
wearable devices corresponding to the detected signals" recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds Utter' s teaching of biometric information and signatures
about a user is consistent with Appellants' Specification, which states "a
fingerprint may include ... some emissions can be attributed to specific
body parts." Ans. 19--20 ( citing Spec. ,r 15).
Appellants argue Utter fails to teach the limitation "network
fingerprint" ( emphasis added) recited in claim 1 because Utter teaches
biometric information and signatures about a user, rather than any
information as to the network of devices. Br. 10-11. We disagree with
Appellants.
At the outset, we note that the Examiner makes a new finding in the
Answer by relying on Utter's teaching of biometric information and
4
Appeal2018-004571
Application 14/498,287
signatures about a user being consistent with paragraph 15 Appellants'
Specification for the first time. Compare Final Act. 2-11 (see analysis of
claim 1 lacking discussion of paragraph 15 of Appellants' Specification)
with Ans. 10-13 (comparing Utter ,r,r 41--42 with Spec. ,r 15). Appellants do
not rebut the Examiner's new finding because they did not file a Reply
Brief.
Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Utter teaches
biometric information and signatures about a user, which teaches the
limitation "generat[ing] a first body area network fingerprint of the first
plurality of wearable devices corresponding to the detected signals" recited
in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 10, 15, and 18). Further, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that Utter's teaching of biometric information
and signatures about a user is consistent with Appellants' Specification,
which states "a fingerprint may include ... some emissions can be attributed
to specific body parts." Ans. 19-20 (citing Spec. ,r 15).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Utter teaches
the limitation "generat[ing] a first body area network fingerprint of the first
plurality of wearable devices corresponding to the detected signals" recited
in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 10, 15, and 18).
Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 11-13,
16, 17, 19, 20, and 23-25 with particularity, but assert the rejections of those
claims should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued in
independent claims 1, 10, 15, and 18. Br. 8-13. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 10, 15, and 18; and
(2) dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 11-13, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23-25.
5
Appeal2018-004571
Application 14/498,287
III. Utter Teaches "associate[ing] location information with the first
body area networkfingerprint" recited in Claim 7 (and similarly
recited in claims 14, 21, and 22)
The Examiner finds Utter teaches sensor 212 may be implemented as
GPS receiver 316, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "associate[ing]
location information with the first body area network fingerprint" recited in
claim 1. Ans. 21-23 ( citing Utter ,r 48).
Appellants argue Utter fails to teach location based data is connected
to the biometric signature in any way. Br. 11-12. We disagree with
Appellants.
Utter teaches sensor 212 may be implemented as various types of
sensors such as biometric sensors and GPS receiver 316 (i.e., GPS receiver
316 has location based data), which teaches the limitation "associate[ing]
location information with the first body area network fingerprint" recited in
claim 1. Ans. 21-23 ( citing Utter ,r 48).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection for claims 7, 14, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
IV. Utter Fails to Teach "simulat[ing] communications that appear to
be from a non-present device" recited in Claim 9
The Examiner finds Utter teaches two runners using bands 104 and
112 are geographically remote from each other, but wish to share data
regarding their race times; if both runners are partaking in the same race,
then they share data in substantially real-time, which the Examiner maps to
the limitation "simulat[ing] communications that appear to be from a non-
present device" recited in Claim 9. Ans. 23-24 (citing Utter ,r 40).
Appellants argue Utter' s sharing data fails to teach simulating
communications. Br. 12. We agree with Appellants.
6
Appeal2018-004571
Application 14/498,287
Utter teaches two runners using bands 104 and 112 are geographically
remote from each other, but wish to share data regarding their race times; if
both runners are partaking in the same race, then they share data in
substantially real-time. Ans. 23-24 (citing Utter ,r 40). However, the cited
portion of Utter relied upon by the Examiner teaches actual communications
between two devices rather than the limitation "simulat[ing]
communications that appear to be from a non-present device" ( emphasis
added) recited in Claim 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection for claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
and 10-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7