Ex Parte Ramaswamy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 23, 2010

10283729 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/283,729 10/30/2002 Ganesh N. Ramaswamy YOR920020239US1 8335
7590 11/24/2010
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560
EXAMINER
DOAN, TRANG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte GANESH N. RAMASWAMY, RAN ZILCA,
and OLEG ALECKSANDROVICH
_____________

Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-19, 38-60, and 67.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for authenticating
a user identity based upon user inputs to the system. See Spec: 1-5. Claim 1
is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. Apparatus for use in performing user authentication,
comprising:
at least one processor operative to: (i) obtain user input,
wherein at least a portion of the user input is associated with
two or more verification objects; and (ii) verify the user based
on the two or more verification objects in accordance with at
least one verification policy operating on a context shared
across the two or more verification objects; and
memory, coupled to the at least one processor, for storing at
least one of the user input and results associated with the user
verification operation.

REFERENCE
Honarvar US 2003/0154406 A1 Aug. 14, 2003
(filed Aug. 21, 2002)

Davis US 6,633,981 B1 Oct. 14, 2003
(filed Jun. 18, 1999)

2 Claims 20-37 and 61-66 were cancelled in an Amendment After Non-
Final, filed September 7, 2007.
2
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-19, 38-51, 53, and 55-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Honarvar. Ans. 3-10.
Claims 52, 54, and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Honarvar in view of Davis. Ans. 10-12.

ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections
Appellants argue on pages 8-19 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-6 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19, 38-51, 53, and
55-60 is in error. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not disclose a
verification policy operating on a context shared across the two or more
verification objects, as claimed in independent claims 1, 13, 41, and 59.
App. Br. 9, 13. Claims 2-12 and 67, 14-19, and 42-50 depend upon claims
1, 13, 41, and 59 (respectively).3
Thus, with respect to claims 1-19, 38-51, 53, and 55-60, Appellants’
contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that
Honarvar discloses a verification policy operating on a context shared across
the two or more verification objects?
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Appellants argue on pages 19-23 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 52, 54, and 67 is in error. Appellants argue
that it is not obvious to combine Honarvar with Davis. App. Br. 19.

3 Appellants make additional arguments with respect to claims 3, 5, 9, 14,
16, 38-40, 46, 55-58, and 60 which we will address in the analysis section.
3
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

Thus, with respect to claims 52, 54, and 67, Appellants’ contention
presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding it obvious to
combine Honarvar with Davis?

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1. Claim 1 requires two or more verification objects to
share a verification policy operating on a context. Appellants argue that
Honarvar discloses multiple sub-processes that do not share context since
Honarvar discloses authenticating each factor by a corresponding sub-
process that does not correspond to any other factor’s authentication sub-
process. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2-3. We disagree.
The Examiner finds that the defined authentication rules that drive the
multi-factor user authentication process is synonymous with the claimed
verification policy operating on a context shared across two or more
verification objects. Ans. 13-14. While the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim limitation and reference may be broad, Appellants have not persuaded
us that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable. Appellants provide
examples from Appellants’ Specification (App. Br. 9-11) to provide context
for the claim limitation “context,” however, the Examiner’s interpretation is
not inconsistent with the Specification, as a whole. Thus, we do not find
Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
Claim 3
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not
4
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

disclose “a dynamic, automated integration of verification processes that
occurs with the claimed features of two or more verification processes
respectively comparing two or more verification objects to at least one user
model.” App. Br. 13. However, these arguments are not persuasive because
they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 5
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Appellants argue that Honarvar fails to
disclose two or more verification objects sharing one user model. App. Br.
13. The Examiner finds that Honarvar discloses this limitation. Ans. 4.
Appellants’ arguments are conclusory, and Appellants do not address the
findings by the Examiner in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief.
Claim 9
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not
disclose a verification process that associates a context which comprises one
or more variables. App. Br. 13-14. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not
teach this limitation because Honarvar only discloses “context sensitive
wrong answer choices” at paragraph [0251]. App. Br. 14. However,
Appellants do not address the findings by the Examiner that paragraph
[0105] discloses this limitation. Ans. 5.
Claim 14
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not
disclose generating a user model using previously enrolled data and using
the user model during the verification process since paragraph [0130] of
5
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

Honarvar does not disclose using the data model to verify the user. App. Br.
14. However, Appellants do not address the findings by the Examiner that
paragraphs [0028], [0105], and [0131] discloses this limitation. Ans. 6.
Claim 46
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 46. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not
disclose storing the context at a central location so that it is accessible by at
least the client device and the verification server so that the client device and
verification server can participate in stateless communication. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds that Honarvar discloses this limitation and specifies
where the limitations are taught by Honarvar. Ans. 8. Appellants’
arguments do not address these specific findings by the Examiner in either
the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection as Appellants’ arguments have not identified an error in the finding
supporting the rejection.
Claims 38 and 39
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 38 and 39. Appellants argue that Honarvar
does not disclose “a verification manager automatically customizing the user
verification means for subsequent user verification” because Honarvar only
allows a user to modify processes in the authentication system. App. Br. 15.
However, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 40
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 40. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not
disclose the ability to handle either a user-specific, application-specific, or
6
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

transaction-specific constraint. App. Br. 16. The Examiner finds that
Honarvar discloses this limitation and specifies where the limitations are
taught by Honarvar. Ans. 7. Appellants’ arguments do not address these
specific findings by the Examiner in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply
Brief. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection as Appellants’ arguments
have not identified an error in the finding supporting the rejection.
Claims 55 and 56
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 55 and 56. Appellants argue that Honarvar
discloses a verification means rather than a verification object since the
portions of the reference cited by the Examiner describe verification process
features rather than verification objects. App. Br. 17. However, Appellants
do not address the findings by the Examiner that paragraphs [0105], [0106],
and [0111] discloses this limitation. Ans. 9.
Claim 57
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 57. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not
disclose a perplexity value. App. Br. 17. We agree that Honarvar does not
use the term “perplexity value,” but the Examiner has interpreted “perplexity
value” to be synonymous with “level of difficulty” taught by Honarvar.
Ans. 9. Appellants have not identified why this interpretation is
unreasonable.
Claim 58
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 58. Appellants argue that Honarvar does not
disclose a user model since the portions of the reference cited by the
7
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

Examiner describe verification process features rather than a user model.
App. Br. 18. The Examiner finds that Honarvar discloses this limitation and
specifies where the limitations are taught by Honarvar. Ans. 9-10.
Appellants’ arguments do not address these specific findings by the
Examiner in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection as Appellants’ arguments have not identified an error
in the finding supporting the rejection.
Claim 60
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 60. Appellants make the same arguments
with respect to claim 60 as with claim 1. App. Br. 18-19. Thus, we do not
find Appellants arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons as
discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Claim 52
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 52. Appellants present the same arguments
discussed above with respect to claim 51. App. Br. 21. Therefore, we do
not find Appellants’ previously presented arguments to be persuasive for the
same reasons as stated above.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s stated motivation
to combine Honarvar with Davis is conclusory. App. Br. 20. We disagree
with Appellants arguments. The Examiner finds that state machines are
well-known mechanisms in the security art and that combining Davis’s state
machine with Honarvar’s system would “provide a more robust user
authentication technique for controlling access to the electronic system
8
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

through user authentication.” Ans. 11. Further, the Examiner finds that the
combination works to “improve the multi-factors user authentication process
in term of logic and control functions.” Ans. 15. Appellants do not provide
sufficient evidence, explanation, or analysis particularly pointing out errors
in the Examiner’s finding and conclusions. Therefore, we are not persuaded
by Appellants’ arguments.
Claim 54
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 54. Appellants present the same arguments
discussed above with respect to claim 51. App. Br. 21. Appellants
additionally present the same arguments with respect to the combination of
Honarvar with Davis, as discussed above with respect to claim 52. App. Br.
21. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ previously presented arguments
to be persuasive for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim 67
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 67. Appellants present the same arguments
discussed above with respect to claim 51. App. Br. 22-23. Appellants
additionally present the same arguments with respect to the combination of
Honarvar with Davis, as discussed above with respect to claim 52. App. Br.
23. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ previously presented arguments
to be persuasive for the same reasons as stated above.

9
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Honarvar discloses a
verification policy operating on a context shared across the two or more
verification objects.
The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Honarvar
with Davis.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-19, 38-60, and 67 is
affirmed.
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).
10
Appeal 2009-006291
Application 10/283,729

AFFIRMED

ELD

RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
90 FOREST AVENUE
LOCUST VALLEY, NY 11560
11