Ex Parte Riddiford

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2018

13379337 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/379,337 03/13/2012
94149 7590 10/26/2018
Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry)
P.O.Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Philip Riddiford
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.
31234-0136US1 5086
EXAMINER
LE,CANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN PHILIP RIDDIFORD
Appeal2018-004185 1
Application 13/379,3372
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 25--41, 43--48, and 52-89. Final Act. 2; Br. 3. Claims
1-24, 42, and 49-51 are cancelled. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
October 4, 2017); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 4,
2017); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 11, 2018); and the
originally-filed Specification ("Spec.," filed December 19, 2011).
2 According to Appellant, the real party-in-interest is BlackBerry Ltd. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004185
Application 13/379,337
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's recited methods, non-transitory computer-readable media,
and devices relate to "a computing device with a graphical authentication
interface in which the device displays a base image and authenticates a user
when a pre-selected element in a secondary image overlying the base image
is aligned with a pre-selected element in the base image." Spec. ,r 5. As
noted above, claims 25--41, 43--48, and 52-89 are pending. Claims 25,
directed to authentication methods, 46, directed to non-transitory computer-
readable media including computer-readable instructions for performing
such methods, and 47, directed to devices comprising a non-transitory
computer-readable medium including computer-readable instructions for
performing such methods, are independent. Br. Claims App 'x. Claims 26-
41 and 43--45 depend directly or indirectly from claim 25, claims 52-70
depend directly or indirectly from claim 46, and claims 4 7 and 71-89
depend directly or indirectly from claim 4 7. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative.
1. An authentication method for a computing device, comprising:
displaying a first image and a second image overlaying the first
image on a display of the computing device, the first image
comprising a plurality of points of interest and the second image
comprising a plurality of elements,
wherein the first image comprises a digital photograph,
wherein the second image is partially transparent except
for the plurality of elements in the second image,
wherein the plurality of elements in the second image
comprise any of the following: numbers, letters, words,
colors, shapes, lines, icons, or any combination thereof;
2
Appeal 2018-004185
Application 13/379,337
receiving input from an input device of the computing device;
repositioning the second image on the display with respect to the
first image in response to the received input;
detecting when a predetermined element in the second image is
geometrically aligned with a predetermined point of interest in
the first image in response to the repositioning, wherein
geometrical alignment occurs when the predetermined element
in the second image is within a threshold distance of the
predetermined point of interest in the first image; and
authenticating a user in response to the detecting that the
predetermined element in the second image is geometrically
aligned with the predetermined point of interest in the first
image.
Id.; see Final Act. 12 (describing each of claims 46 and 47 as similar in
scope to claim 25).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
pending claims:
Kirovski et al. ("Kirovski")
Osborn et al. ("Osborn")
US 2004/0010721 Al Jan. 15, 2004
US 2008/0244700 Al Oct. 2, 2008
Keller et al. ("Keller") US 5,821,933 Oct. 13, 1998
Feb. 18,2010 Alexander et al. ("Alexander") US 2010/0043062 Al
Hwang et al. ("Hwang") US 2008/0060052 Al Mar. 6, 2008
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 25-32, 37--41, 43--48, 52-58, 63-77, and 82-89 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings
of Kirovski and Osborn. Final Act. 6-16. Claims 33-35, 59---61, and 78-80
3
Appeal 2018-004185
Application 13/379,337
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Kirovski, Osborn, and Keller. Id. at 16-19. Claims
36, 62, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious
over the combined teachings of Kirovski, Osborn, and Alexander. Id. at 19--
20. We address these rejections below.
Although the Examiner rejected claims 25-35, 37--41, 43--45, 52---61,
65-80, and 82-89 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hwang and
claims 36, 62, and 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Hwang and Alexander (id. at 21-32), the Examiner
has withdrawn those rejections (Ans. 2). We do not consider those
rejections further in this Decision.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Kirovski teaches or suggests the
"displaying," "receiving," "repositioning," and "detecting" steps of claim
25. Final Act. 7-8. However, the Examiner finds that "Kirovski does not
explicitly disclose authenticating a user in response to the detecting that the
predetermined element in the second image is geometrically aligned with the
predetermined point of interest in the first image." Id. at 8. The Examiner
finds instead that Osborn teaches this limitation and concludes that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings
of Kirovski and Osborn to achieve the methods, as recited in claim 25. Id.
Given the similarities between the limitations of claims 46 and 47 and those
of claim 25, the Examiner also concludes that the combined teachings of
Kirovski and Osborne render obvious the media and devices recited in those
claims, respectively. Id. at 12.
4
Appeal 2018-004185
Application 13/379,337
Claim 1 recites the step of "repositioning the second image on the
display with respect to the first image in response to the received input." Br.
Claim Appx. Thus, in the "repositioning" step, the second image, which
overlays the first image, moves with respect to the first image. The
Specification explains that:
Once the secondary image layer is displayed, the user has to
move the elements in that secondary image layer so that the pre-
selected element in that secondary image layer sufficiently aligns
over the pre-selected point of interest[ in the first (base) layer].
Because the elements in the secondary image layer are formed
into a linked grid of elements, moving one element causes all the
rest to move in a predictable manner. . . . A successful
authentication, e.g., log-in attempt, occurs when the pre-selected
element in the secondary image sufficiently aligns over the pre-
selected point of interest[ in the first (base) layer].
Spec. ,r,r 29--30 ( emphasis added).
Referring to Kirovski's Figure 8, the Examiner finds that image 710
teaches the recited first image and overlaying grid 840 of polygonal shapes
teaches the recited second image of claim 25. Final Act. 7 ( citing Kirovski
,r 61 ). Referring to Kirovski's Figure 18, the Examiner finds that Kirovski's
disclosure of a user's selection of a position on the displayed image, e.g.,
image 710, and the repositioning of that selected position based on offsets
teaches the "repositioning" of the second image, as recited in claim 25. Id.
(citing Kirovski ,r 144). In particular, the Examiner asserts that:
Kirovski discloses repositioning the second image on the
display with respect to the first image in response to the received
input (Kirovski: fig. 18, 1812; par. 0144, In a selection block
1812, the user selects a position on the displayed image.
Following the selection, an association block 1816 associates the
selected position with a tile. Next, in a determination block 1820,
the exemplary method 1800 determines a set of offsets (or
transforms) composed of offsets that can re-position (or move)
5
Appeal 2018-004185
Application 13/379,337
the selected position to other positions within the bounds of the
tile ... ).
Note that Kirovski discloses displaying a first image and a
second image overlaying the first image on a display of
computing device, the first image comprising a plurality of points
of interest and the second image comprising a plurality of
elements (Kirovski:fig. 8,par. 0061; 710 is first image & 840 is
2nd image includes various polygon). In addition, repositioning
the second image on the display with respect to the first image is
relative.
Ans. 3.
Appellant disagrees and contends that:
Selection block 1812 is described, in paragraph [0144], as
being representative of a user selecting a position on the
displayed image ( emphasis added). The Applicant submits that,
in Kirovski, it is not "the second image" that is repositioned.
Instead, in Kirovski, a "selected position" is repositioned. The
Applicant submits that the "selected position" is a position on the
first image - a user-selected pixel.
Br. 13. We agree.
As noted above, claim 25 recites that the second image is repositioned
with respect to the first image. Br. Claims Appx. This is accomplished by
moving the second image with respect to the first image. See Spec. ,r,r 29--
30; see also id. ,r 52 ("The grids can be moved by the user to any part of the
base image 10 to line up the memorised Safe Point 803 with the chosen
password, as shown in FIG. 9."). Kirovski teaches that offsets may be used
to reposition a selected pixel either during password selection or during
logon. Kirovski ,r,r 63-70, Figs. 10, 11, 13; see Br. 13 ("It appears that
Kirovski discloses repositioning of the 'selected position to other positions
within the bounds of the tile' ( see paragraph O 144 ]). "). Referring to
Kirovski's Figure 13,
6
Appeal 2018-004185
Application 13/379,337
If at logon [(e.g., authentication)], the user selects a pixel Q,
which lies outside of the polygon n1, then the exemplary system
will, using the transform or offset, re-position the pixel Q to a
position Q' which may lie within the polygon n 1 (e.g.,
Q'=Q+\f2(Pi)). If the position Q' lies within the polygon n1, then
the exemplary system will assume that the user selected polygon
n1.
Spec. ,r 79; see id. ,r,r 77-81. Thus, Kirovski teaches that the user selected
pixel is repositioned from Q to Q', but neither the grid nor its tiles are
repositioned; and, contrary to the Examiner's assertion, Kirovski's image
and the tiles of the grid do not move relative to each other.
The Examiner must show that the applied references, as combined,
teach or suggest all of the limitations of the rejected claims. Here, Appellant
is correct that the Examiner has not shown that Kirovski teaches or suggests
at least the "repositioning" step, as recited in independent claim 25. Br. 12-
13. Because the Examiner relies on the same disclosure of Kirovski to teach
the "reposition" instruction of claims 46 and 4 7, we also agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has failed to show that Kirovski teaches those
limitations. Id. at 31 (claim 46), 33 (claim 47). Thus, we are persuaded that
the Examiner erred in the finding claims 25, 46, and 47, as well as claims
26-32, 37--41, 43--45, 48, 52-58, 63-77, and 82-89, which depend
therefrom, rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Kirovski and
Osborn.
The Examiner also concludes that claims 33-36, 59---62, and 78-81,
which depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 25, 46, or 47,
are rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Kirovski, Osborn, and
Keller or Alexander. Final Act. 16-20. Appellant contends that, because
the Examiner erred in rejecting their base claims, claims 25, 46 and 4 7, we
7
Appeal 2018-004185
Application 13/379,337
cannot sustain the rejections of dependent claims 33-36, 59---62, and 78-81.
Br. 17, 34--35. We agree.
Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 25--41, 43--48, and 52-89; and we do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 25--41, 43--48, and 52-89.
REVERSED
8