Mian Huang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 3, 2019

14749952 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2019)

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.
14/749,952 06/25/2015 Mian Huang ALIZP040 1535
21912 7590 12/03/2019
VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP
10050 N. FOOTHILL BLVD #200
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
EXAMINER
SCHMIDT, KARI L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2019 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):
usptocorrespondence@ip-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MIAN HUANG1
____________________

Appeal 2018-008952
Application 14/749,952
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 24, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. 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(a). According to Appellant, Alibaba Group Holdings Limited is the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008952
Application 14/749,952

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an identity authentication system where a
user to be authenticated (first user) uses a first device to request
authentication and a second user (target user) is sent information to validate
the user on a second device (who provides the information to the first user).
The user to be authenticated is verified if information received from the first
device matches the information sent to second user. Spec., Abstract. Claim
1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
determining, in response to a request from a first
device operated by a source user, that an identity
authentication is to be performed for the source user;
identifying a target user who is deemed to satisfy
at least a preset condition, the target user being a user
other than the source user, wherein the identifying the
target user comprises:
determining a set of one or more associated
users of the source user based at least in part on
historical user information of the source user;
computing a set of one or more trust levels
between the source user and the respective ones of
the set of one or more associated users based at
least in part on the historical user information of
the source user and location information of the
respective ones of the set of one or more
associated users, wherein the historical user
information of the source user comprises
information associated with one or more
communications between the source user and the
respective ones of the set of one or more
associated users; and
selecting the target user from the set of one
or more associated users;
generating validation information to authenticate
identity of the source user;
Appeal 2018-008952
Application 14/749,952

3
sending the validation information to a second
device operated by the target user;
receiving a validation response from the first
device operated by the source user; and
performing identity authentication, including
verifying whether the validation response received from
the first device operated by the source user matches the
validation information sent to the second device.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings or suggestions of Copsey
(US 2014/0259129 A1) and Tkachev (US 2014/0331278 A1). Final Act. 5–
15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant’s first argument asserts that the combination of Tkachev
and Copsey does not teach the claimed feature of computing a set of one or
more trust levels between the source user and the respective ones of the set
of one or more associated users, and that the trust level is based at least in
part on the historical user information associated with one or more

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 8, 2018
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 13, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); Non-
Final Office Action mailed September 11, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 13, 2018 (“Ans.”)
Appeal 2018-008952
Application 14/749,952

4
communications between the source user and the respective ones of the set
of one or more associated users and location information of the respective
ones of the set of one or more associated users. Specifically, Appellant
argues that Tkachev does not teach trust levels between the source and the
user, rather in Tkachev the trustworthiness is computed for each user
independent of another user. App Br. 8–9. Further, Appellant argues that
even if the trustworthiness is between users, the trustworthiness is not based
upon historical information and location information of the user. App. Br.
10, Reply Br 3–4.
The Examiner identifies that Tkachev teaches that the verification
agents for a user are from the user’s social circle and that the trust factor can
be between 0 and 100 percent based upon such things a relationship to the
user/principal and relationship to the party requesting authentication.
Answer 4 (citing Tkachev, 118 and 178). Thus, the Examiner finds that
Tkachev teaches the claimed trust levels between the user (source user) and
the verification agent (associated user). Further, the Examiner finds that
Tkachev teaches the trust level is based upon historical communications and
location. Answer 5–7 (citing Tkachev paras. 134, 136, and 178).
We concur with the Examiner’s findings. Tkachev in paragraph 178
teaches the trust factor assigned to a verification session agent/guardian (the
claimed associated user) is based upon many factors, such as “relationship to
the user,” thus showing it includes trust between source user and associated
user as claimed. The paragraph also identifies that the trust factor is based
upon location of both the user and the verification session agent/guardian.
Thus, showing it is based upon location. Further, paragraph 178 also
identifies that the trust factor is based upon “historical false-positive and
Appeal 2018-008952
Application 14/749,952

5
false-negative hit rates, historical no-decisions, any other historical
authentication session data, and/or any other potential component that might
have statistically significant impact on the outcome of the verification
session.” As the historical hit rates and no decisions are based upon prior
communications between users, see Tkachev para. 168, we consider
Tkachev to also teach the claimed trust level based upon historical
information of communications between users. Thus, Appellant’s
arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Tkachev and Copsey teach the claimed
feature of computing a set of one or more trust levels between the source
user and the respective ones of the set of one or more associated users.
Appellant’s second argument asserts that the combination of Copsey
and Tkachev is based upon hindsight reasoning and would change the
principal operation of Copsey. Appellant argues that Copsey’s system is
concerned with the authentication system trusting the authenticator.
Appellant cite Copsey’s teaching ameliorating concerns of an authenticator
colluding with the user desiring to be authenticated, and argue that changing
Copsey to be based upon trust between the user being authenticated and the
authenticator, would change the principal purpose of Copsey. App. Br. 12–
13 (citing paras. 21–26 and 29[sic]).
We are not persuaded of error by this argument. Initially, we note that
the paragraph quoted by Appellant is paragraph 28 of Copsey, not paragraph
29. Paragraph 29 of Copsey states “In some instances, content providers
may be concerned about the possibility of collaboration or collusion.” Thus,
as Copsey states that collusion is a concern only “in some instances,” we do
not consider changing Copsey to include a trust level between users and
Appeal 2018-008952
Application 14/749,952

6
authenticator to be changing the principal of operation. Rather, we consider
the principal operation of Copsey is to authenticate a person through the use
of a corroborative authenticator who collaborates with the system to
challenge the person seeking authentication to verify their authentication.
See Abstract. The combination of the teachings of the references is merely
substituting a different method of selecting the authenticator. The concept
of using the trust between person being authenticated and authenticator has
the advantage of facilitating identification, as the authenticator has a deeper
knowledge of the person and is less likely to make a false positive
identification. See e.g., Tkachev para. 120. Thus, Appellant’s arguments
directed to the second issue have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
combining the teachings of Copsey and Tkachev.
As these two issues are the only issues presented with respect to the
rejection of claims 1 through 24, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of these claims.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1-24 103 Copsey, Tkachev 1–24

AFFIRMED