Ex Parte Bruno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2016

13136358 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/136,358 07/28/2011
63994 7590 09/08/2016
ZIMMERMAN & CRONEN, LLP
1330 BROADWAY
SUITE 710
OAKLAND, CA 94612-2506
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philip J. Bruno
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.
4630 3689
EXAMINER
DESROSIERS, EV ANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2016 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 PHILIP J. BRUNO, ROBERT A.D. SCHWARTZ,
and PAUL SCHWARTZ
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-14, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application relates to "computer systems having at least one
terminal that requires user authentication and provides secure access to the
system and includes an ultrasonic proximity sensor that logs out of the user's
account on the terminal when the user leaves the vicinity of the terminal."
(Spec. i-f 4.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. In a computer terminal that includes a keyboard connected
to a computer through a communications channel, subject to a
user log-on authentication process, the improvement
compnsmg:
at least one user identification module secured within and
connected to the keyboard, each identification module capable
of carrying out a respective log-on user authentication process;
a user presence detector supported on an upper surface of
the keyboard and directed toward an expected location of a user
at the keyboard, said user presence detector generating a user-
absent signal when no user is detected at said expected location;
and,
said computer terminating the connection of the terminal to
the computer following a predetermined time delay after said
user-absent signal is received.
1 Appellants identify "KeyStroke International Corp. aka KSI Corp. of
Oakland, California" as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Given US 6,282,655 B 1 Aug.28,2001
Gliniecki et al. US 2003/0046588 Al Mar. 6, 2003
Fauble et al. US 2003/0159053 Al Aug. 21, 2003
Teller et al. US 2008/0167537 Al July 10, 2008
Travis US 2011/0185408 Al July 28, 2011
Buer et al. US 2013/0013925 Al Jan. 10,2013
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 8-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Travis, Given, and Gliniecki. (See Final Act. 3---6.)
2. Claims 2 and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Travis, Given, Gliniecki, and Buer. (See Final Act. 6-9.)
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Travis, Given, Gliniecki, Buer, and Fauble. (See Final
Act. 9-10.)
4. Claims 4--7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Travis, Given, Gliniecki, and Teller. (See Final Act. 10-
12.)
3
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend that the rejections are in error for the following
reasons:
1. Regarding claim 1, "[ n Jo matter how the references are
combined, they do not disclose the crucial element of mounting the presence
detector on the keyboard and aiming it at the keyboard user." (App. Br. 17-
18.)
2. Travis does not disclose or suggest "wherein said at least one
user identification module is selected from a group that includes: RFID card
reader, Bluetooth transceiver, electro-magnetic card stripe reader, fingerprint
scanner, and HID device," as recited in claim 8. (See App. Br. 18.)
3. Travis does not disclose or suggest "a pair of said user
identification modules, whereby the keyboard carries out a two factor log-on
authentication process with said modules," as recited in claim 9. (See App.
Br. 18.)
4. Regarding claim 2, Buer "does not teach the encryption of the
presence detector signals, since it does not mention presence detectors at all .
. . [ n ]or does [Buer] depict the structural relationships of the components of
that system, and all of its figures are described as flow charts or block
diagrams." (See App. Br. 18.)
5. Regarding claims 10-12, Buer "does not teach the combination
of two-factor validation or recorded ID' s [sic] of user devices with a user
presence detector supported on the keyboard surface that terminates the
connection to the computer if the user departs the location of the keyboard."
(See App. Br. 20-21.)
4
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
6. Regarding claim 13, "[a]lthough the combined references are
joined together to allegedly equal the claimed invention, it is clear that none
of the references, nor all of them taken together, describe mounting the
ultrasonic user presence detector on the upper surface of the keyboard ...
[ n ]or do they terminate the connection to the computer when the user
presence detector is no longer detected at the terminal, since they do not
mention this device at all." (See App. Br. 21.)
7. Regarding claim 3, Fauble "does not teach the encryption of
user presence detector signals, since it does not mention the use of presence
detectors at all." (See App. Br. 22.)
8. Regarding claims 4--7, Teller "does not have any disclosure
regarding a computer keyboard or an ultrasonic user presence detector that []
directs an acoustic beam along an axis toward an expected location of a user,
nor does the combination of Travis/Given/[Gliniecki]." (See App. Br. 24.)
9. "Combining [the] references in an attempt to reject the express
structural details of Claims 5-7 is a confabulation of maladroit references."
(See App. Br. 25.)
10. The combination does not include "a software application in the
computer that blocks any log-on from the terminal unless said ultrasonic
presence detector is connected to the terminal," as required by claim 14.
(See App Br. 25.)
5
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue that Given "does not disclose a user presence
detector supported on an upper surface of the keyboard directed at an
expected location of the user of the keyboard" because "it only describes
communications connections ... and is completely silent regarding any
structural arrangement of the components" and "[t]here is no mention nor
suggestion of mounting the detector on the keyboard nor, in fact, any
description of how the device is support[ed] or where it is actually located."
(App. Br. 17.)
The Examiner responds that "it is obvious that 'motion sensor 100' of
Fig. 1 of [Given] can be mounted anywhere on the 'keyboard 300' including
on the upper surface of the keyboard 300." (Ans. 12, emphasis omitted.)
We agree with the Examiner. One of skill in the art would know that
Given's motion sensor would need to be positioned so as to sense the
presence of a user (that being its purpose) and, as such, the top of the
keyboard (which sits immediately in front of the user) would have been an
intuitive place to locate it. Appellants' arguments about the benefits of
"mounting the user presence detector on the keyboard" (App. Br. 17) are
unpersuasive because (a) the fact that the top of the keyboard is an
advantageous location does not make it a non-obvious location2 and (b) the
claim requires only that the detector be "supported on an upper surface of
the keyboard," not that it be "mounted on" the keyboard.
2 Indeed, while Appellants do not argue a lack of motivation to combine, we
conclude that the advantages they identify would have been appreciated by a
skilled artisan and provided incentive to arrange the detector as in the claim.
6
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3
According to claim 2, "the keyboard includes encryption engine
means for encrypting all communications between the keyboard and the
computer," while claim 3 adds that "the keyboard includes an internal
keyboard microprocessor, and said encryption engine means resides in said
microprocessor." Appellants acknowledge (as they must) that "encryption is
not new per se" and that Buer "does use encrypted communications with a
security device." (App. Br. 19--20.) Appellants argue, however, that Buer
"does not teach the encryption of the presence detector signals, since it does
not mention presence detectors at all." (Id. at 20; see id. at 22.)
We are not persuaded of error because the Examiner relies on Buer
only for encryption, finding the presence detector in Given. (See Final Act.
3---6.) "Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references." In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner's rejections of claims 2 and 3 are sustained.
Claims 4-7, 13, and 14
Claim 4 requires that the user presence detector means of claim 1
"includes an ultrasonic presence detector that projects an acoustic beam
primarily along a detector axis." For this limitation, the Examiner finds:
TELLER discloses wherein said user presence detector means
includes an ultrasonic presence detector (TELLER pa. [0153])
[sensor device include location sensing device, such as an
ultrasonic] that projects an acoustic beam primarily along a
detector axis (TELLER pa. [O 171]) [pad and sound transducer
may be used to sense acoustic signals]
7
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
(Final Act. 10, emphasis omitted.)
Appellants argue that Teller "does not have any disclosure regarding a
computer keyboard or an ultrasonic user presence detector that [] directs an
acoustic beam along an axis toward an expected location of a user, nor does
the combination of Travis/Given/[Gliniecki]." (App. Br. 24.) Appellants
also argue that Teller is non-analogous art. (Id.) In response, the Examiner
only addresses the non-analogous art issue. (See Ans. 20-21.)
We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Teller lack a
teaching or suggestions of an "ultrasonic ... detector that projects an
acoustic beam primarily along a detector axis." Paragraph 153 of Teller
teaches a "stand alone sensor device 700" that "may include location sensing
device 765, such as an ultrasonic or a radio-frequency identification tag."
Paragraph 171 teaches "sensor device 800," the described embodiment of
which is "a sound transducer coupled to a pad containing an acoustic
transmission material." We find nothing in the cited portions of Teller that
teaches or suggests an ultrasonic detector that "projects an acoustic beam
primarily along a detector axis" and, therefore, decline to sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claim 4 and its dependent claims 5-7, 13, and 14.
We do not reach Appellants' other arguments for claims 5-7, 13, and 14.
Claim 8
Claim 8 requires that "said at least one user identification module is
selected from a group that includes: RFID card reader, Bluetooth
transceiver, electromagnetic card stripe reader, fingerprint scanner, and HID
device." Appellants argue that Travis "describes only biometric sensors,
whereas the plain language of the claim recites electronic devices as well,
8
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
such as RFID card reader, Bluetooth device, magnetic stripe card reader, and
HID devices, in addition to the biometric device." (App. Br. 18.)
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument because the Markush-
type claim limitation is satisfied by the presence of any one of the group3
and, as the Examiner finds, Travis plainly teaches a fingerprint scanner.
(See Travis i-f 14; Final Act. 5.) The Examiner's rejection of claim 8 is,
therefore, sustained.
Claim 9
Claim 9 requires "a pair of said user identification modules, whereby
the keyboard carries out a two factor log-on authentication process with said
modules." The Examiner finds that Travis' "entry of a particular password
and biometric authentication of the user can be viewed as [a] 'two factor log-
on authentication process."' (Final Act. 6, emphasis omitted.) Appellants
assert that Travis "makes no such teaching of [a pair of user identification
modules], no[r] is it suggested in any way" and that "[t]he entry of the
password does not generally require an ID module, which is understood in
the prior art to be a device for reading an ID trait or object carried by the
user." (App. Br. 18-19.)
The issue here is whether the term "user identification module" is
sufficiently broad as to cover the hardware and software that implements the
password system. Having not been directed to any narrowing language in
3 See Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'!, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) ("Element (a) is written in Markush form, such that the entire
element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush group
is in the prior art.").
9
Appeal2014-009463
Application 13/136,358
the Specification or evidence of any specific definition in the relevant art, we
conclude that it is and, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
Claims 10--12
Appellants challenge the rejection of claims 10-12 with the argument
that Buer "does not teach the combination of two-factor validation or
recorded ID' s [sic] of user devices with a user presence detector supported
on the keyboard surface that terminates the connection to the computer if the
user departs the location of the keyboard." (App. Br. 20-21.) This
argument is insufficient to show Examiner error because it is directed at
Buer alone, instead of the combination of references that forms the basis for
the rejection. See In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
DECISION
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-3 and 8-12 are
affirmed. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4--7, 13, and 14 are
reversed.
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-IN-PART
10