Lee Amaitis et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2020

14640439 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2020)

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.
14/640,439 03/06/2015 Lee Amaitis 10-2291CIP-C1 1091
63710 7590 04/13/2020
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
MCCOY, RICHARD ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2020 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):
lkorovich@cantor.com
patentdocketing@cantor.com
phowe@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LEE AMAITIS, PAUL WILLIAMS,
SUNNY TARA, and MATTHEW MORRISSETTE
____________

Appeal 2019-001787
Application 14/640,439
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–18, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
CFPH, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001787
Application 14/640,439

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns “gaming
and/or mobile devices.” Spec. ¶ 2.2 The Specification explains that “an
application security handshake may include a multisystem secure
authentication protocol that may facilitate compliance with one or more
regulatory requirements” to “provide reasonable assurances that a mobile
device accessing a gaming service is at an approved gaming location at a
time of a wager.” Id. ¶ 275. Hence, the invention endeavors to “provide
reasonable assurances that a gaming application executed by a mobile device
includes an authentic application by using a multistage hashing protocol to
send application and OS signatures to the device authenticator service before
allowing betting.” Id. The invention also endeavors to “provide reasonable
assurances that approved client versions are authorized to be used to place
wagers by storing approved application hashing values on an internal
database which is not accessible outside a firewall.” Id.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
storing, by at least one processor, in a memory of a
gaming service, a plurality of hashes generated from operating

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed March 6, 2015; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed February 22, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
August 27, 2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 2,
2018; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 31, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001787
Application 14/640,439

3
system files of operating systems approved for use with the
gaming service;
receiving, by at least one processor, from a mobile device
a hash generated from a portion of an operating system file of
an operating system currently in use by the mobile device and a
length of the operating system file;
comparing, by the at least one processor, the received
hash to the plurality of hashes stored in memory;
determining, by the at least one processor, that the
received hash is equal to at least one of the hashes stored in
memory based on the comparison; and
based on at least in part on the determination, approving,
by the at least one processor, the mobile device to access a
gaming service.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejection on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Walker and Lerouge. Final Act. 7–11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that
the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion concerning unpatentability under § 103(a). We
adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action and
Walker et al. (“Walker”) US 2004/0127277 A1 July 1, 2004
Lerouge et al. (“Lerouge”) US 2008/0168564 A1 July 10, 2008
Appeal 2019-001787
Application 14/640,439

4
Answer. See Final Act. 3–11; Ans. 3–13. We provide the following to
address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
Independent Claims 1, 7, and 13
As noted above, the § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 7,
and 13 rests on Walker and Lerouge. See Final Act. 7–11. Appellant argues
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, and 13 because Walker and
Lerouge do not teach or suggest the following limitations in claim 1 and
similar limitations in claims 7 and 13:
storing, by at least one processor, in a memory of a gaming
service, a plurality of hashes generated from operating system
files of operating systems approved for use with the gaming
service;
receiving, by at least one processor, from a mobile device a
hash generated from a portion of an operating system file of an
operating system currently in use by the mobile device and a
length of the operating system file; comparing, by the at least
one processor, the received hash to the plurality of hashes
stored in memory.
See Appeal Br. 8–11 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 2–4.
Appellant concedes that “Walker’s authentication server 1704
authenticates data relating to usage of the gaming device.” Appeal Br. 10.
But Appellant contends that “authenticating usage data does not suggest” the
claimed “storing . . . in a memory . . . a plurality of hashes generated from
operating system files . . . approved for use with the gaming service.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that “Walker simply does not discuss
storing hashes generated from operating system files” and that “Walker’s
authentication code is not based on approved operating systems.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). Appellant admits that Walker teaches “provid[ing]
authentication codes indicative of the state of gaming device software.”
Appeal 2019-001787
Application 14/640,439

5
Reply Br. 4. But Appellant asserts that the result of an invalid authentication
code “would simply be to cast doubt on the usage data’s authenticity.” Id.
Appellant further asserts that Walker does not suggest “allowing a mobile
device to access a gaming service, when a hash associated with a portion . . .
of an operating system used by a gaming device is authentic.” Id.
For the reasons explained below, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination that Walker’s “operating system file verification” teaches or
suggests the disputed claim limitations. Ans. 3 (citing Walker ¶¶ 457–458,
475, 697, 699, 710, 737); see id. at 5, 7, 10–13; Final Act. 7–8.
According to the Specification, the claimed “operating system files”
include gaming applications. See Spec. ¶ 275. In particular, the
Specification describes “provid[ing] reasonable assurances that a gaming
application executed by a mobile device includes an authentic application by
using a multistage hashing protocol to send application and OS signatures to
the device authenticator service before allowing betting.” Id. In addition,
the Specification describes “provid[ing] reasonable assurances that approved
client versions are authorized to be used to place wagers by storing approved
application hashing values on an internal database which is not accessible
outside a firewall.” Id.
Because the claimed “operating system files” include gaming
applications, the claimed “hash generated from a portion of an operating
system file of an operating system currently in use” encompasses a hash
generated from a gaming application currently in use.
Walker discloses a hash generated from a gaming application
currently in use and comparing that hash to a plurality of stored hashes
related to gaming applications. Walker ¶ 697. Specifically, Walker explains
Appeal 2019-001787
Application 14/640,439

6
that “a gaming device may compute a hash value . . . of its own program.”
Id. Walker also explains that “[a]n authentication server may then use this
information to determine whether software on a gaming device has been
modified (e.g., by comparing a generated hash value to a known hash value
for the gaming device’s program).” Id.
Accordingly, Walker’s “known hash value for the gaming device’s
program” corresponds to the claimed hashes for approved versions of the
gaming-device software (i.e., “hashes generated from operating system files
of operating systems approved for use with the gaming service”). Walker’s
computed “hash value . . . of its own program” corresponds to the claimed
hash generated by the mobile device (i.e., “hash generated from a portion of
an operating system file of an operating system currently in use by the
mobile device”). And Walker’s “comparing a generated hash value to a
known hash value for the gaming device’s program” to “determine whether
software on a gaming device has been modified” corresponds to the claimed
comparing hash values to verify the version of the gaming-device software
(i.e., “comparing” the “hash values” to determine whether to “approv[e] . . .
the mobile device to access a gaming service”).
Thus, the Examiner correctly finds that the cited portions of Walker
teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations.
Appellant also argues that “Lerouge’s teaching of generating
checksums for code to be protected would not suggest ‘hashes generated
from operating system files of operating systems approved for use with the
gaming service’ . . . since the operating system files are not ‘code to be
protected’ as taught in Lerouge.” Appeal Br. 8–9 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2019-001787
Application 14/640,439

7
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error because
Appellant attacks the references individually. Where a rejection rests on the
combined disclosures in the references, an appellant cannot establish
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Specifically, the Examiner relies on Lerouge for teaching a hash
“generated from a portion of an operating system file and a length of the
operating system file.” Final Act. 10 (emphasis by Examiner) (citing
Lerouge ¶ 8); see Ans. 8. The Examiner “relies on Walker (not Lerouge) for
teaching a hash” for approved versions of the gaming-device software.
Ans. 4. Thus, the combined disclosures in Walker and Lerouge teach or
suggest the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 3, 7, 10; Ans. 4–5.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, and 13 for
obviousness based on Walker and Lerouge. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 7, and 13.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2–6, 8–12, and 14–18
We also sustain the § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2–6, 8–12,
and 14–18 because Appellant does not argue patentability separately for
them. See Appeal Br. 7–13; Reply Br. 2–4; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18.
Appeal 2019-001787
Application 14/640,439

8
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 103(a) Walker, Lerouge 1–18
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED