Adobe Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 17, 20212020001403 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 13/710,347 12/10/2012 Benjamin D. Follis 2713US01 1697 108982 7590 05/17/2021 FIG. 1 Patents 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/17/2021 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): Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BENJAMIN D. FOLLIS and DENNIS E. GRIFFIN ____________ Appeal 2020-001403 Application 13/710,347 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, 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 12, 24–32, 34–37, and 39–44, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001403 Application 13/710,347 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the invention concerns accelerometer- based biometric data providing input to “a device in a 2-dimensional (2D) manner (such as by entering the data using a stylus or finger to apply pressure to a touchscreen) or in a 3-dimensional (3D) manner (such as by moving the device in 3D space).” Spec. ¶ 16.2 As an example, “a user may be informed (e.g., verbally or via another communication channel) to trace a particular shape (e.g., a square) in 3D space with the user device in order to access a document.” Id. ¶ 60. As another example, “a user may be informed (e.g., verbally or via another communication channel) to trace a particular shape (e.g., a pyramid) in 3D space with the user device in order to indicate acceptance to a contract or agreement.” Id. After the user traces a shape in 3D space with the user device, a verification system may determine whether the traced 3D shape corresponds sufficiently to the previously specified “particular shape.” Id. Moreover, accelerometer data representing the traced 3D shape may be “embedded in a document,” e.g., “included in metadata associated with a document” or “included as hidden or otherwise non-visible data in the document.” Id. ¶ 57; see id. ¶ 58. 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the Specification, filed December 10, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed March 4, 2019; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed August 13, 2019; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 13, 2019; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 12, 2019. Appeal 2020-001403 Application 13/710,347 3 Exemplary Claim Independent claim 12 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows: 12. A method comprising: outputting, by a device, information identifying a particular shape to be traced in three-dimensional space through movement of the device as a whole; receiving, by the device, user input data describing user input of a user signature within an electronic document using a touchscreen; generating, by the device, accelerometer data from an accelerometer, the accelerometer data describing the movement of the device in three dimensional space; embedding, by the device, the user input data and the accelerometer data within the electronic document; and outputting, by the device, the electronic document as including the embedded user input data and the embedded accelerometer data as configured to verify the user signature based at least in part on a comparison of having the particular shape identified by the information output by the device. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),3 the Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Bayram et al. (“Bayram”) US 2010/0225443 A1 Sept. 9, 2010 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the filing date for Application 13/710,347 predates the AIA’s amendment to § 103, this decision refers to the pre-AIA version of § 103. Appeal 2020-001403 Application 13/710,347 4 Name Reference Date Guenther US 2011/0179289 A1 July 21, 2011 Agevik at al. (“Agevik”) US 2011/0223974 A1 Sept. 15, 2011 Nasiri et al. (“Nasiri”) US 2012/0007713 A1 Jan. 12, 2012 The Rejections on Appeal Claims 12, 24, 25, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bayram, Nasiri, and Guenther. Final Act. 5–10. Claims 26, 27, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bayram, Nasiri, Guenther, and applicant’s admitted prior art. Final Act. 10–11. Claims 28, 35, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bayram, Nasiri, Guenther, and Agevik. Final Act. 11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the § 103(a) rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the references teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 12, 24, 25, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, and 44 INDEPENDENT CLAIM 12 As noted above, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 12 rests on Bayram, Nasiri, and Guenther. See Final Act. 5–7. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 because the references fail to teach or Appeal 2020-001403 Application 13/710,347 5 suggest the following limitation in claim 12: “outputting, by a device, information identifying a particular shape to be traced in three-dimensional space through movement of the device as a whole.” See Appeal Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 3–5. The Examiner cites the combined disclosures in Bayram, Nasiri, and Guenther as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation in claim 12. See Final Act. 6, 12–13; Ans. 11. Appellant concedes that “Nasiri describes receiving a trajectory drawn by a user and matching it with ‘the user’s predetermined air signature.’” Appeal Br. 17 (quoting Nasiri ¶ 54). But Appellant asserts that “Nasiri is limited to receiving a trajectory drawn by a user for verification with an authorized user’s predetermined air signature.” Id. at 18. Appellant further asserts that “the express purpose of Nasiri would be defeated if Nasiri was permitted to output an air signature that is used to control access, as it would expose the actual ‘secret’ of the air signature and would be easily compromised by a malicious party.” Id. In addition, Appellant disputes that Bayram and Guenther disclose “outputting . . . a particular shape to be traced in three-dimensional space.” See Appeal Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 3–5. The Examiner explains that “Nasiri is only relied upon to teach what an air signature is” and that “[e]ven if Nasiri did not disclose outputting the signature, the combination of references does.” Ans. 11; see Final Act. 6, 12–13. Further, the Examiner makes the following findings: First, Bayram “discloses that the user signature can be used locally or in a remote application or service.” Ans. 11 (citing Bayram ¶ 26). Second, Guenther “is directed to embedding a signature in a document that is shared in, e.g., an office environment or over the Internet.” Id. (citing Guenther ¶ 142). Appeal 2020-001403 Application 13/710,347 6 Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Bayram, Nasiri, and Guenther teach or suggest the disputed limitation in claim 12. Nasiri discloses authentication using “an air signature,” e.g., “an abstract set of shapes and curves” or “a real signature drawn in the air.” Nasiri ¶ 54. To authenticate a user and unlock a device, Nasiri compares a “trajectory drawn by the user” with “the user’s predetermined air signature.” Id. In contrast to inputting data representing a “trajectory drawn by the user,” the disputed limitation in claim 12 requires “outputting . . . information identifying a particular shape to be traced in three-dimensional space.” Appeal Br. 25. Additionally, the disclosures in Bayram and Guenther about “outputting the signature” after a user traces a signature do not correspond to “outputting . . . information identifying a particular shape to be traced in three-dimensional space.” See, e.g., Ans. 11; Bayram ¶ 26; Guenther ¶ 142. Because the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Bayram, Nasiri, and Guenther teach or suggest the disputed limitation in claim 12, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 12. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 30 AND 37 AND DEPENDENT CLAIMS 24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 41, 43, AND 44 Independent claim 30 includes a limitation similar to the disputed limitation in claim 12, i.e., “receiving . . . accelerometer data describing movement of the device in three-dimensional space and is collected responsive to information output to trace a particular shape in three- dimensional space.” Appeal Br. 21, 27. Independent claim 37 also includes a limitation similar to the disputed limitation in claim 12, i.e., “means for outputting information identifying a particular shape to be traced in three Appeal 2020-001403 Application 13/710,347 7 dimensional space by a device.” Id. at 21, 28. For the reasons discussed for claim 12, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 30 and 37. Claims 24, 25, 29, and 43 depend from claim 12; claims 31, 32, 34, and 36 depend from claim 30; and claims 41 and 44 depend from claim 37. For the reasons discussed for claims 12, 30, and 37, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 41, 43, and 44. The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 26–28, 35, 39, 40, and 42 Claims 26–28 depend from claim 12; claim 35 depends from claim 30; and claims 39, 40, and 42 depend from claim 37. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how Agevik and applicant’s admitted prior art overcome the deficiency in Bayram, Nasiri, and Guenther discussed above for claims 12, 30, and 37. Hence, for the reasons discussed for claims 12, 30, and 37, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejections of claims 26–28, 35, 39, 40, and 42. Because the preceding determinations resolve the § 103(a) rejections for all pending claims, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12, 24–32, 34–37, and 39–44. Appeal 2020-001403 Application 13/710,347 8 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 12, 24, 25, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44 103(a) Bayram, Nasiri, Guenther 12, 24, 25, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44 26, 27, 39, 40 103(a) Bayram, Nasiri, Guenther, applicant’s admitted prior art 26, 27, 39, 40 28, 35, 42 103(a) Bayram, Nasiri, Guenther, Agevik 28, 35, 42 Overall Outcome 12, 24–32, 34–37, 39– 44 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation