Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12701504 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121701,504 02/05/2010 WILLIAM R. ANDERSON
61178 7590 03/29/2016
DAVID P. LENTINI
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OCULIS002_US1 1185
EXAMINER
53 Clark Road STOICA, ADRIAN
North Berwick, ME 03906-6310
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2016 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 WILLIAM R. ANDERSON, STEVEN E. TURNER,
and STEVEN PUJIA
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,5041
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "maintaining computer user
privacy while using computer-based data processing and communications
equipment." Spec. i-f 3. Of the claims on appeal, claim 1 is illustrative of the
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oculis Labs, Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below with emphasis added to
highlight the disputed limitation.
1. A computer-controlled system for regulating the
interaction between a computer and a user of said computer
based on the environment of said computer and said user, said
computer controlled system comprising:
a data input device and a data output device, each of said
data input device and said data output device in electronic
communication with said computer;
an image sensor, said image sensor being configured to
collect facial recognition data proximate to said computer, said
sensor device being further configured to communicate said
facial recognition data to a security processor;
a user security parameter database, said database
including data encoding security parameters associated with
said user, and said database configured to communicate with
said security processor; and
a security processor configured to receive said facial
recognition data and said security parameters associated with
said user and determine the attention point of said user with
respect to said data output device, said security processor being
further configured to at least partially control the operation of
said data input device and said data output device in response to
said attention point of said user.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Inoue et al. (US 2006/0210167 Al;
published Sept. 21, 2006) (hereinafter "Inoue"), Lindsay (US 2007 /0250920
Al; published Oct. 25, 2007), Kumhyr et al. (US 2009/0307601 Al;
published Dec. 10, 2009) (hereinafter "Kumhyr"), and Matsuhira et al.
(US 2006/0049940 Al; published Mar. 9, 2006) (hereinafter "Matsuhira").
2
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the March 7, 2013 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-15) and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-7). We
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
otherwise noted. We, however, highlight and address specific findings and
arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Combining Inoue and Kumhyr
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combines Inoue and
Kumhyr (hereinafter "the combination") because (i) the Examiner's
reasoning is conclusory, (ii) the combination offers no benefit, and (iii) the
combination renders Inoue unsatisfactory for its intended use. See App. Br.
10-12; Reply Br. 2--4.
(i) The Examiner's reasoning is conclusory
Appellants argue the Examiner's reasoning is conclusory because
"aid[ing] in intruder detection" is "a bald assertion with no supporting
facts," logic, or evidence. See App. Br. 11. In addition, Appellants argue
(i) because the Examiner relies on Lindsay's teachings to link Kumhyr with
Inoue, and (ii) because there is no proper motivation to combine Lindsay and
Inoue, there can be no proper motivation to combine Kumhyr and Inoue.
See Reply Br. 3.
3
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
The Examiner finds Inoue teaches using a device's camera to analyze
facial characteristics of person(s) within the camera's view, and if an
unauthorized person is viewed, to take protective measures (e.g., modify or
block the displayed image). See Ans. 5; Final Act. 6 (citing Inoue i-fi-156, 69,
Figs. 7, 8). As to Kumhyr, the Examiner finds it teaches eye tracking to
detect when a user reflexively looks away from the display, including at a
distraction (e.g., a person approaching the user), and in response, taking
protective measures, such as locking the display or ceasing the content's
display. See Final Act. 8 (citing Kumhyr Abstract, i-fi-1 7, 18, Fig. 1 ). The
Examiner reasons the approaching person may be outside the field captured
by the camera. See Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner finds "Kumhyr expands
(aids in) the intruder detection capabilities disclosed by Inoue .... " See
Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 9 ("Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to include the above features ... to limit the damage to
the protected assets ... , under the circumstances outlined above.").
We agree with the Examiner's findings and we find Appellants'
arguments unpersuasive. We find the Examiner provides "articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with
approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For
example, the Examiner reasons another person may be outside the field
captured by Inoue's camera and by adding Kumhyr's detecting if a user
reflexively looks away from the display, such as at a peeper, Inoue's intruder
detection capabilities are expanded. See, e.g., Ans. 6. We agree one of
ordinary skill in the art generally would favor having more, rather than less,
security capabilities.
4
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
Furthermore, we disagree with Appellants' argument that the
Examiner relies on Lindsay's teachings as support to combine Inoue and
Kumhyr. Although the Examiner reasons Kumhyr's teachings can improve
both Inoue's intruder detection capabilities and Lindsay's covert password,
the Examiner unmistakably provides separate reasoning for combining just
Kumhyr and Inoue. See Ans. 6 ("Kumhyr expands (aids in) the intruder
detection capabilities disclosed by Inoue in addition to improving the covert
password of Lindsay.") (Original emphasis omitted and italics added).
(ii) The combination offers no benefit
Appellants argue combining Kumhyr with Inoue does not improve
Inoue. See App. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants argue Inoue directly
detects whether a peeping threat exists (i.e., whether unrecognized faces are
detected proximate to the display), and thus, Inoue can determine the
presence of an intruder of which the user is unaware. See id. Appellants
then argue Kumhyr is less capable than Inoue because Kumhyr simply infers
an intruder's presence whenever a user looks away from the display. See
App. Br. 11. Appellants, thus, contend combining Kumhyr with Inoue
"provides no advantage" and, further, Kumhyr is less reliable because the
user may be unaware of a peeper or may look away for a non-threatening
reason. See id.; see also Reply Br. 3--4 (arguing "combining Kumhyr with
Inoue provides no net benefit to Inoue, since Inoue uses passive detection of
intruders that would be more effective than Kumhyr' s teachings of active
detection by the user").
The Examiner finds Kumhyr's teachings complement Inoue's
teachings, contrary to Appellants' argument. See Ans. 6. The Examiner
also cites as support for this finding the reasoning provided above for
5
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
combining Kumhyr and Inoue. See id.; see also supra (discussing reasoning
for combining Kumhyr and Inoue).
We agree with the Examiner and find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive. As we discussed above, and as the Examiner finds,
combining Kumhyr with Inoue expands Inoue' s intruder detection
capabilities. Appellants incorrectly focus on replacing Inoue's capabilities
rather than adding to them. We agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to combine Kumhyr with
Inoue to provide both of the taught capabilities for added security.
(iii) The combination renders Inoue unsatisfactory for its
intended use
Appellants argue combining Kumhyr with Inoue renders Inoue
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4.
Specifically, Appellants argue Inoue, by using facial recognition, relieves
the user of having to cover and uncover manually the display in response to
any actual or imagined threat. See App. Br. 11-12. Appellants contend
combining Kumhyr with Inoue would force a user to unlock the display after
looking away, whether or not a real threat is present, which requires repeated
logins to regain access, forcing the user to worry again about covering and
uncovering the screen. See App. Br. 12.
Additionally, Appellants argue a system that combines the teachings
of Inoue and Kumhyr could crash. See App. Br. 12. Specifically,
Appellants argue a crash can occur when Inoue passively detects a peeper so
as to require shutting off the display while Kumhyr' s active eye tracking
detects the user's gaze remains on the display so as to require the display to
remain on. See App. Br. 12.
6
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
The Examiner finds Kumhyr complements Inoue, as discussed above.
See Ans. 6; see also supra (discussing reasoning for combining Kumhyr and
Inoue). In addition, the Examiner finds Kumhyr addresses false alarms by
teaching that they can be minimized by requiring a user to look away from
the display for a predetermined amount of time (e.g., several seconds) before
activating security measures. See Ans. 6 (citing Kumhyr i-fi-f 17, 18); see also
Final Act. 8 (citing Kumhyr i-f 18).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds Inoue' s active detection of unknown
faces (i.e., a real threat) can take precedence over Kumhyr's eye tracking.
See Ans. 6. When no real threat is detected (i.e., known or no faces
detected), the system can operate based on the user's validation of the
inferred, possible threat (i.e., looking away) in accordance with Kumhyr.
See id. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes any alleged conflict can be
resolved using simple logic that is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner and we find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive. As we discussed above, and as the Examiner finds,
combining Kumhyr with Inoue complements and expands Inoue' s intruder
detection capabilities. Simply put, the combined teachings of Inoue and
Kumhyr provide additional security measures over Inoue alone - the
combination provides security based on facial recognition and on user eye
tracking.
Kumhyr also teaches requiring a user's glance to remain off the
display for a predetermined period of time (i.e., a time delay) before
blocking the display. See Kumhyr i-fi-f 17, 18. Hence, Appellants' argument
that the combination would force a user to again worry about covering and
7
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
uncovering the display to avoid repeated lock-outs and re-logins to regain
access is misplaced. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that Inoue' s intended use is avoiding the nuisance and worry of
covering and uncovering the display manually.
We also find Appellants' arguments that a system employing the
combined teachings of Inoue and Kumhyr would crash unpersuasive. We
agree with the Examiner and find one of ordinary skill in the art would find
it obvious to employ the combined teachings (and could readily do so) to
provide greater security (e.g., blocking the display when an authorized face
is detected or when the user looks away for a time). See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) ("[I]n many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle."); see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). In addition, we are
not persuaded that combining Inoue and Kumhyr in the manner proffered by
the Examiner is "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
(2) Teaching of determining a user's attention point
Appellants argue Lindsay fails to teach or suggest determining the
attention point of a user with respect to the display, in accordance with the
claims on appeal. See App. Br. 12-13. According to Appellants, Lindsay
instead teaches using "facial recognition and eye movements only as a
means for user identification and password entry .... " Id. at 13. Appellants
contend determining if a user's eyes are open or closed (i.e., detecting
8
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
physical motions) is not within the scope of the claimed determining the
user's attention point limitation. See Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds Lindsay teaches closing both eyes to signal a
threat, and that this action is within the scope of the broadest reasonable
interpretation of determining a user's attention point with respect to the
display. See Ans. 7; Final Act. 7 (citing Lindsay i-f 292). In addition, the
Examiner finds Kumhyr teaches using eye tracking to detect when a user
looks away from a display to infer an intrusion (e.g., a person approaching
the user). See Final Act. 8 (citing Kumhyr Abstract, i-fi-17, 18, Fig. 1); Ans. 6
(citing Kumhyr i-fi-17, 15, 18).
We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 1 's "determin[ing] the attention point of said user
with respect to said data output device" covers Lindsay's teaching of
detecting when a user closes both eyes. See App. Br. 15 (claim 1 ); Lindsay
i-f 292. The Specification describes the attention point of a user as being
where a user is looking. See Spec. i-f 57. Obviously, when a user's eyes are
closed, the user is not looking at a display. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner Lindsay teaches determining the user's attention point with
respect to the display by teaching detecting whether a user's eyes are closed
(i.e., determining the user is not looking at the display) under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the limitation. Furthermore, we agree with the
Examiner Kumhyr also teaches determining the attention point of the user
with respect to the display, in accordance with the claims on appeal. See,
e.g., Kumhyr i-fi-1 7, 15, 18.
9
Appeal2014-005202
Application 12/701,504
CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings and reasoning, which apply to each of the
claims on appeal,2 we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 Appellants argue claims 1-20 as a group. See App. Br. 5 ("Claims 1-20
stand or fall together.").
10