10808166 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 3, 2012)

Ex Parte Singerle

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 3, 2012

10808166 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 3, 2012)

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. 10/808,166 03/24/2004 Gregory J. Singerle JR. 048556/274149 4837 7590 01/03/2012 Authenticatid Corp. 150 Middleton Drive Suite 100 Charlotte, NC 28203 EXAMINER RUBIN, BLAKE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2012 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 GREGORY J. SINGERLE JR. ____________ Appeal 2009-015051 Application 10/808,166 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015051 Application 10/808,166 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-97. (App. Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Disclosed Invention 1 The disclosed invention includes “systems, methods, and computer program products for authenticating a client via a dynamic passcode.” (Abstract.) The system includes an authenticator having a passcode generator and an authentication matrix for a client. (Spec. 14:23-29.) In operation, the passcode generator selects row and column labels for “one or more of the elements of the respective authentication matrix . . . . Thereafter, the authenticator can present the randomly selected labels of the authentication matrix to the client.” (Id. at 15:2-6.) The client then generates a passcode from the entries in its authentication matrix identified by the row and column labels selected by the passcode generator and sends the passcode to the authenticator. (Id. at 15:19-24.) “The authenticator can then determine if the passcode sent by the client matches the passcode generated by the passcode generator.” (Id. at 15:24-25.) Exemplary claim 1 follows: 1. An apparatus comprising: a processor configured to send, to a client, a set of a plurality of labels identifying a respective plurality of elements of an authentication matrix, the authentication matrix including a plurality of elements organized in one or more columns and rows each of which includes a respective header, each 1 The ensuing description constitutes findings of fact designated as FF 0. Appeal 2009-015051 Application 10/808,166 3 element being identifiable by a label including a column header and row header that identifies the respective column and row of the element, the set of labels including the column headers and row headers of the respective labels being unknown at the client until the set of labels is sent thereto, wherein the processor is configured to receive a passcode from the client formulated based upon the elements identified by the set of labels, and wherein the processor is configured to authenticate the client based upon the formulated passcode. The Examiner rejected claims 1-97 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gardner (Pub. No. 2002/0013904 A1.) (Ans. 3-15.) ISSUE Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Does Gardner disclose an apparatus for authenticating a client with an authentication matrix having elements identified by row and column labels wherein “the set of labels including the column headers and row headers of the respective labels being unknown at the client until the set of labels is sent thereto,” as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 9, 17, 25, 33, 42, 51, 74, 82, and 90? FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Gardner 1. Gardner discloses a method for authenticating users of controlled systems using “a random code grid matrix with embedded alphanumeric Appeal 2009-015051 Application 10/808,166 4 codes, in a preferred embodiment related to each weekday, date and month.” (Abstract.) “Moreover, the order in which elements of the codes are required to be input is also randomly generated during the authentication process itself for an interactive system.” (Id.) 2. A portion of a Variable Personal Identification Number (VPIN) code may be retrieved for a particular month and another portion of the VPIN code may be retrieved from the matrix for a particular date using the first digit of the date as a row label and the second digit of the date as a column label. (Id. at ¶ [0056]; FIG. 3.) The entries in the matrix contain more than one column but contain only one row. (Id. at FIG. 3.) 3. Moreover, in an interactive system, the digits in the retrieved code could be requested in a particular order. (Id. at ¶ [0062]; FIG. 3.) For example, the digits from the code for July 24 th could be requested as the digit in the 3 rd column of July’s code, the 2 nd and 1 st digits of the 24 th ’s code, and the digit in the 2 nd column of July’s code. (Id. at ¶ [0062]; FIG. 3.) ANALYSIS Issue - Claims 1-97 Appellant argues that Gardner does not disclose “an apparatus for authenticating a client in which a set of labels including column and row headers identifying columns and rows of a matrix including elements from which a passcode is formulated are unknown at the client until that set is sent to the client.” (App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).) In response, the Examiner asserts that the month element of Gardner “can be viewed as an indication of the row of the matrix.” (Ans. 16.) But the month is clearly known by the client prior to any notification by the authenticating apparatus. Appeal 2009-015051 Application 10/808,166 5 (See FF 2.) Moreover, although the entry for a particular month in the matrix contains more than one column, it contains only one row. (FF 2 and 3.) Accordingly, the row of the month’s matrix entry is also known to the client prior to any notification by the authenticating apparatus because the entry contains only one row. (FF 2.). Thus, because Gardner does not disclose that the row header is unknown to the client until the set of labels is sent to it, as required by all of the independent claims (i.e., claims 1, 9, 17, 25, 33, 42, 51, 74, 82, and 90), we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of any of the independent claims or the claims that depend from them (i.e., claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-24, 26-32, 34-41, 43-50, 52-73, 75-81, 83-89, and 91-97). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-97. REVERSED ELD