Ex Parte Navratil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

11846893 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/846,893 08/29/2007 Jiri Navratil YOR920070204US1 1264
48063 7590 11/24/2014
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
OBINIYI, PAULSON IDOWU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2014 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 JIRI NAVRATIL and BHUVANA
RAMABHADRAN
____________________

Appeal 2012-008001
Application 11/846,893
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1 and 4–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-008001
Application 11/846,893

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “techniques that determine
authentication and identification of a user by use of an
electroencephalographic signal.” (Spec. 1:6–7.) Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for authenticating a user, comprising the steps
of:
obtaining at least one electroencephalographic response
from a user in accordance with perceptory stimuli presented to
the user; and
authenticating the user based on the obtained
electroencephalographic response, wherein the authenticating
step comprises:
detecting a pattern of P300 event-related potentials
in the obtained electroencephalographic response;
comparing the detected pattern of P300 event-
related potentials with an expected pattern of P300 event-
related potentials based on electroencephalographic response
information obtained from the user during an enrollment
process;
determining P300 event-related potentials in the
detected pattern which are deemed to be correctly produced,
based on a results of comparing the detected pattern of P300
event-related potentials with the expected pattern of P300
event-related potentials;
determining P300 event-related potentials in the
detected pattern which are deemed to be incorrectly produced,
based on a results of comparing the detected pattern ofP300
event-related potentials with the expected pattern of P300
event-related potentials;
determining an authentication score corresponding
to the detected pattern of P300 event-related potentials, wherein
the authentication score is determined based on a number of
correctly produced P300 event-related potentials in the detected
Appeal 2012-008001
Application 11/846,893

3
pattern, wherein an occurrence of an incorrectly produced P300
event-related potential in the detected pattern is indicative of an
imposter; and
comparing the determined authentication score to a
predetermined authentication threshold value to positively
authenticate the user or reject the user as an imposter.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chaudhari (US 2005/0022034 A1; Jan. 27, 2005)
and Prichep (US 2007/0100251 A1; May 3, 2007).
Claims 7–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaudhari, Prichep, and Thieme (US 2006/0056662 A1;
March 16, 2006).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaudhari, Prichep, and well-known electronic
components.
ISSUES
(1) Did the Examiner correctly find the proposed combination of
Chaudhari and Prichep suggested the authentication process recited in claim
1?
(2) Did the Examiner correctly find that one of skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chaudhari and Prichep in
the proposed manner?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Chaudhari and Prichep does not teach or suggest the authentication process
recited in claim 1 for several reasons. (See App. Br. 8–13; Reply Br. 2–6.)
Appeal 2012-008001
Application 11/846,893

4
First, Appellants assert the Examiner made inconsistent findings regarding
whether Chaudhari disclosed the claimed “P300 event-related potentials.”
(App. Br. 10.) Second, Appellants argue Chaudhari does not teach or
suggest the “detecting,” “comparing,” and “determining” steps recited in
claim 1. (Id. at 10–12; Reply Br. 3–4.) In this regard, Appellants contend
Chaudhari’s “conditional response values” are different from the claimed
“authentication score.” (App. Br. 12.) Third, Appellants argue the Examiner
failed to articulate any reasonable basis or motivation to combine the
teachings of Chaudhari and Prichep in the proposed manner. (See App. Br.
13; Reply Br. 4–5.) In particular, Appellants contend the Examiner
erroneously found Prichep teaches a user authentication process, and based
on this erroneous finding, concluded one of skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Chaudhari and Prichep in the claimed
manner. (Reply Br. 4.) Moreover, according to Appellants, neither
Chaudhari nor Prichep disclose or suggest using “P300 events . . . in a user
authentication process” that includes the steps recited in Appellants’ claims.
(See App. Br. 13.) Fourth, Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply
Brief that the Examiner’s proposed combination changes Chaudhari’s
principle of operation and renders Chaudhari unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose. (Reply Br. 5.)
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner’s rejection
is erroneous. First, contrary to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner’s
findings regarding whether Chaudhari discloses “P300 event-related
potentials” are consistent. (See Ans. 9, 26.) The Examiner found Chaudhari
implicitly taught the recited “P300 event-related potentials” but did not
explicitly teach this subject matter. (Id.) These findings are entirely
Appeal 2012-008001
Application 11/846,893

5
consistent, and in any event, the Examiner also found Prichep taught the
recited “P300 event-related potentials.” (Id.)
Second, most of Appellants’ “arguments” concerning the “detecting,”
“comparing,” and “determining” steps consist of nothing more than a
summary of the cited portions of Chaudhari followed by an assertion that
Chaudhari does not teach or suggest the limitation at issue. (See, e.g., App.
Br. 10–12.) These conclusory arguments are unpersuasive not only because
they fail to adequately explain why Chaudhari does not teach or suggest the
claimed subject matter but also because the arguments do not fully address
the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner effectively found Chaudhari
disclosed an authentication method that, when considered in light of what
was well-known in the prior art and the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ, suggested the limitations at
issue. (See, e.g., Ans. 6–9, 26–28.) Appellants’ arguments concerning
Chaudhari alone have not persuaded us the Examiner’s finding is erroneous.
Moreover, the Examiner found Prichep explicitly taught the claimed “P300
event-related potentials,” and Prichep combined with Chaudhari and the
other findings noted above also suggested the claimed subject matter. (See
Ans. 9.) Appellants’ arguments concerning Chaudhari alone have not
persuaded us the Examiner’s findings regarding Prichep combined with
Chaudhari are erroneous. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Appellants’ arguments concerning the “authorization score” are
equally unpersuasive. (See App. Br. 12.) The Examiner found Chaudhari
disclosed “conditional response signal values” used to form vectors that
Appeal 2012-008001
Application 11/846,893

6
were in turn used to authenticate users and equated the values with the
recited “authorization score.” (See Ans. 8.) Although Appellants assert
these values “clearly” do not teach or suggest the recited “authentication
scores,” (App. Br. 12), Appellants have provided no persuasive evidence or
argument in support of this contention. The plain and ordinary meaning of
the term “authentication scores” encompasses data used for authentication,
and the cited portions of Chaudhari disclose using the conditional response
signal values for this purpose, (see, e.g., Chaudhari ¶¶ 17–20).
Third, even if we were to agree the Examiner’s rationale for
combining Chaudhari and Prichep rests in part on an erroneous finding that
Prichep teaches user authentication, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as obvious. The Examiner essentially
found that Chaudhari in combination with what was well-known in the prior
art and the inferences and creativity available to a person of ordinary skill in
the art suggested the claimed limitations, (see Ans. 6–9, 26–28), and
Appellants have not persuasively argued this finding is erroneous. In any
event, the Examiner found Chaudhari and Prichep are from the same art,
(see Ans. 25), Prichep explicitly disclosed the P300 event-related potentials
implicitly disclosed by Chaudhari, (id. at 9), and essentially concluded the
recited limitations were no more than a predictable combination of well-
known steps and elements that perform according to their established
functions, (see, e.g., id. at 6–9). Such findings provide adequate support for
combining the teachings of Chaudhari and Prichep in the claimed manner.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
As for Appellants’ argument that neither Chaudhari nor Prichep
discloses or suggests using “P300 events . . . in a user authentication
Appeal 2012-008001
Application 11/846,893

7
process” as recited in the claims, the Examiner found Chaudhari’s
authentication process implicitly used P300 event-related potentials, and
Chaudhari in combination with what was well-known in the prior art and the
inferences and creativity available to a person of ordinary skill in the art
suggested the claimed limitations, (see Ans. 6–9, 26–28). The Examiner
also found the combination of Chaudhari and Prichep suggested using P300
event-related potentials in an authentication process in the claimed manner.
(See, e.g., id. at 6–9.) Appellants have not persuaded us these findings are
erroneous.
Finally, although Appellants claim the proposed combination would
“clearly change the entire principle of operation” of Chaudhari’s
authentication process and render the process unsatisfactory for it intended
purpose (Reply Br. 5). Appellants fail to provide any persuasive evidence or
argument in support of this contention.
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants
have not provided separate substantive patentability arguments for claims 4–
20, (see App. Br. 13–14), we also sustain the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 4–20.
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

lv