Ex Parte Wyssen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

10582831 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
10/582,831 04/12/2007 Hans Wyssen 27592-01057-US3 4997
30678 7590 03/21/2014
NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP
1875 EYE STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
ABRISHAMKAR, KAVEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2014 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 HANS WYSSEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-009235
Application 10/582,831
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. EVANS, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009235
Application 10/582,831

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Appellant’s disclosure relates to authenticating an original document
through the use of electronic image signals corresponding to the document.
Spec. 1.
Claim 1,1 reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer system, comprising:
a memory configured to store:
electronic image data corresponding to an original
tangible document, the tangible document having an electronic
displayable verifiable provenance, and
separately derived electronic displayable
verification information corresponding to the electronic
displayable verifiable provenance, and
an output configured to provide said image data and said
verification information for display by the user to authenticate
the original tangible document,
wherein the verification information is displayed on the
image data.

Evidence Relied Upon
Pasieka
Simpson
US 6,587,945 B1
US 7,295,677 B2
Jul. 1, 2003
Nov. 13, 2007

1 Claim 1, as presented in the Claims Appendix, does not reflect
amendments made in a response filed by Appellant on March 2, 2010.
Because Appellant and the Examiner refer to the amendments presented
there, we analyze claim 1 as including those amendments.
Appeal 2011-009235
Application 10/582,831

3

Rejection
Claims 1–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pasieka and Simpson. Ans. 3–17.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Nov. 8, 2010) and the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.” filed Mar. 18, 2011). We refer to the Briefs and the
Answer (“Ans.” mailed Jan. 20, 2011) for the respective positions of
Appellant and the Examiner.
Appellant’s arguments raise the issue of whether the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Pasieka and Simpson teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations highlighted in claim 1 above.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner and adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3–23. We highlight and address
specific findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues Pasieka’s “encrypted image fingerprint that merely
serves as an image signature providing proof of authorship simply does not
teach ‘separately derived electronic displayable verification information
corresponding to the electronic displayable provenance,’ [because] the
image signature corresponds to the image itself, rather than the ‘[]
Appeal 2011-009235
Application 10/582,831

4
provenance’ of the ‘[] document’” and is not included in the original
document. App. Br. 12. See also App. Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Pasieka teaches imagers that convert paper
documents, such as contracts, which include signatures of the parties, into
digital form. The signatures of the parties on the original document meet the
claimed “provenance,” which “will appear unaltered in a scanned image.”
Ans. 18 (citing Pasieka 4:11–20; 8:24–30; and 5:55–62).
We find Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 11–14) unpersuasive of
error. The Examiner cites parties’ signatures as the claimed provenance, not
Pasieka’s image fingerprint or image signature. Ans. 18. Appellant’s
argument that Pasieka’s image data corresponds to the image of the entire
document (App. Br. 12) does not negate that the image data also corresponds
to the “provenance,” which appears on the “original tangible document” and
in the image data. The “provenance” is verifiable because, if the original
signature is altered, then a hash of the altered image would not produce the
same fingerprint as a hash of the original document. See, generally, Pasieka
4:11–20; 8:24–30; and 5:55–62.
To the extent Appellant argues Pasieka’s image signature is not
“displayed on the image data,” (App. Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 5) we are
unpersuaded of error because the Examiner cites Simpson’s watermark for
that limitation. Ans. 4 (citing Simpson 5:4–16). We are unpersuaded of
error in the Examiner’s finding that “[i]t would have been obvious to use the
visible watermark of Simpson in the system of Pasieka so that the image can
still be viewed while still providing information about the owner of the
image.” Id.
Appeal 2011-009235
Application 10/582,831

5
Accordingly, because Appellant does not present sufficient argument
or evidence to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues claims 19 and 38
under separate headings (App. Br. 16–17) but on the same basis as claim 1.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 2–18 and 20–37.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–38.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–38 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).

AFFIRMED

gvw