Ex Parte Chin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

13212211 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017)

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.
13/212,211 08/18/2011 DAVID H. CHIN 00092.00002CIP1 5798
98262 7590
David E. Crites
15900 Rochin Terrace
Los Gatos, CA 95032
06/14/2017 EXAMINER
LI, LIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
critesd@umich.edu
davidcrites @ frontier.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID H. CHIN
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, and
8—25, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 This appeal is related to Appeal Nos. 2016-007409 and 2017-001192.
2 The real party in interest is identified as the inventor, David H. Chin. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention relates to touch-based authentication of a
mobile device through user-generated pattern creation. Spec. 12. The
touch-based authentication transforms the mobile device from an initial state
to an unlocked state based on a tactile pattern associated with a stored
unlocking gesture. Abstract.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 19, reproduced below, are exemplary of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A touch-based authentication method of a mobile device
comprising:
recognizing a tactile pattern on a touch screen as an
unlocking gesture;
storing the unlocking gesture to a memory of the mobile
device;
recognizing another tactile pattern on the touch screen;
and
transforming the mobile device from an initial state to an
unlocked state if it is determined that the another tactile pattern
matches the the [sic] unlocking gesture wherein the another
tactile pattern comprises one or more components applied
simultaneously.
12. A touch-based authentication method of a mobile device
comprising:
recognizing a tactile pattern on a touch screen as an
unlocking gesture wherein the tactile pattern has a shape and a
position;
storing the unlocking gesture to a memory of the mobile
device;
accepting another tactile pattern on the touch screen; and
2
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
transforming the mobile device from an initial state to an
unlocked state if it is determined that the another tactile pattern
matches the shape of the unlocking gesture but not the position.
19. A touch-based authentication method of a mobile device
comprising:
recognizing a tactile pattern on a touch screen as an
unlocking gesture wherein the tactile pattern has a shape and an
orientation;
storing the unlocking gesture to a memory of the mobile
device;
accepting another tactile pattern on the touch screen; and
transforming the mobile device from an initial state to an
unlocked state if it is determined that the another tactile pattern
matches the shape of the unlocking gesture but not the
orientation.
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1,5, and 8—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Rytivaara et al. (US 2005/0253817 Al; Nov. 17, 2005)
(“Rytivaara”), Omura et al. (US 6,429,856 Bl; Aug. 6, 2002) (“Omura”),
and D’Souza et al. (US 2009/0322700 Al; Dec. 31, 2009) (“D’Souza”).
Final Act. 2—1?
(2) Claims 12, 13, 15—20, and 22—25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rytivaara and Omura. Final Act. 7—19.
3 Although claim 6 is included in the summary of this rejection (Final Act.
2), the only substantive rejection provided relies on an additional reference,
as noted infra.
3
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
(3) Claims 12, 13, and 15—18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rytivaara and Gourgey et al. (US
2003/0098803 Al; May 29, 2003) (“Gourgey”). Final Act. 19-25.
(4) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Rytivaara, Omura, D’Souza, and Chaudhri et al. (US 2007/0150842
Al; June 28, 2007) (“Chaudhri”). Final Act. 25-26.4
(5) Claims 14 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Rytivaara, Omura, and Chaudhri. Final Act. 26—27.
(6) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Rytivaara, Gourgey, and Chaudhri. Final Act. 27—28.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8—11
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, a touch-based authentication
method of a mobile device comprising “transforming the mobile device from
an initial state to an unlocked state if it is determined that the another tactile
pattern matches the . . . unlocking gesture wherein the another tactile pattern
comprises one or more components applied simultaneously.” App. Br. 12
(Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues the combination of Rytivaara and D’Souza does not
teach or suggest using simultaneous tactile components for unlocking a
4 We note claim 6 depends from claim 5, which depends from independent
claim 1. The Examiner’s summary of the rejection of claim 6 does not
include Omura. Final Act. 25. We find this oversight on the Examiner’s
part is harmless error and interpret the rejection of dependent claim 6 as
including all references used in the rejection of claims 1 and 5, from which it
depends. See Final Act. 25 (claim 6 is rejected by references “as applied to
claim 5 above”).
4
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
mobile device touch screen. App. Br. 9, 11. Appellant acknowledges
D’Souza teaches simultaneous touches, but asserts D’Souza uses these
touches “for interacting ‘with data being displayed, such as graphics and
photos, or with programs such as when playing music,’” “but not for
authentication,” as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 9 (citing D’Souza 13).
Appellant also argues Rytivaara teaches “detecting touches on
predetermined contact areas on the touch screen in a given order,” not
detecting simultaneous touches. App. Br. 10-11 (citing Rytivaara 14).
Appellant further argues there is no reason to change Rytivaara’s touch
ordering to simultaneous touches as taught by D’Souza because “[t]ouch
ordering is a core principle in Rytivaara.” App. Br. 11. As such, Appellant
argues the Examiner’s proposed modification of Rytivaara changes
Rytivaara’s principle of operation, requires substantial reconstruction and
redesign of Rytivaara’s elements, lacks articulated reasoning, and relies on
impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 10—11.
The Examiner reasonably finds and articulates a rational underpinning
for combining Rytivaara’s screen authentication by touches with D’Souza’s
simultaneous touch detection. Ans. 29, 31—32 (citing D’Souza 5—7, 55);
Final Act. 5. As the Examiner finds, D’Souza teaches a method for
detecting two simultaneous touches on a touchscreen to perform operations.
Ans. 29, 31—32 (citing D’Souza 5—7, 55); Final Act. 5. Although
D’Souza provides example operations that include interacting with data
being displayed, such as zoom or rotate (see 13), one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that D’Souza’s simultaneous touch detection
would be useful to perform other operations, such as unlocking a mobile
device. We also agree with the Examiner that the combination of Rytivaara
5
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
with D’Souza does not change Rytivaara’s principle of operation or require a
substantial reconstruction. Ans. 31—32. Appellant’s support for asserting a
change in Rytivaara’s principle of operation relies upon Appellant’s
argument that “[tjouch ordering is a core principle” of Rytivaara because the
term “given order” appears 18 times. App. Br. 11. The number of
references to a feature does not alone make it a “basic principle^,” In re
Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959), that must be preserved in any
combination. Modifying Rytivaara’s touch ordering does not change
Rytivaara’s basic principle of deactivating the lock of a touch screen based
on touch rather than a password. See Rytivaara ]Hf 1—7. Moreover,
simultaneous touches are performed in a “given order” (i.e., simultaneously),
and Rytivaara expressly teaches simultaneous touch as part of the method.
See Rytivaara 21, 29.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rytivaara, D’Souza, and Omura.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 8—11, which are not argued
separately. App. Br. 9, 11.
Appellant does not provide separate arguments for the rejection of
dependent claim 6. Thus, for the same reasons as independent claim 1 from
which claim 6 depends, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rytivaara, D’Souza, Omura, and Chaudhri.
Claims 12—18
Independent claim 12 recites, inter alia, a touch-based authentication
method of a mobile device comprising “transforming the mobile device from
6
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
an initial state to an unlocked state if it is determined that the another tactile
pattern matches the shape of the unlocking gesture but not the position.'1'’
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues the combination of Rytivaara and Omura does not
teach or suggest an authentication method by a tactile pattern matching the
shape of the unlocking gesture but not the position. App. Br. 7. In
particular, Appellant argues neither Rytivaara nor Omura teaches or suggests
“comparing two user entries such that the shape may be matched
independent of the location.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant acknowledges Omura
normalizes an unlocking signature size, but asserts Omura is silent on
matching the shape of the unlocking gesture but not the position. App. Br.
8. Appellant further argues Omura’s handwriting authentication “comparing
touch coordinates ... is necessarily position dependent,” contrary to claim
12. App. Br. 8 (citing Omura col. 57,11. 21—23, 34—35, col. 58,11. 23—24,
48-49). We do not agree.
Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Omura teaches authentication
based on matching the shape but not the position of a tactile pattern. Final
Act. 16—17; Ans. 17—18. Omura teaches “authentication processing as to
whether permission to access the system is given or not may be performed
according to handwriting of user’s signature.” Col. 57,11. 3—5. One of
ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would have understood Omura’s
authentication to be based on the shape of the input. Omura does not state
that the position of the pattern must also match. Thus, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood Omura’s reference to a “coordinate signal
series” (e.g., Omura col. 57,1. 22) to indicate that the coordinates are
compared on a relative basis. In addition, we agree with the Examiner (Ans.
7
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
17) that Omura’s teaching of normalizing coordinates to allow a signature of
an arbitrary size (see Omura col. 58,11. 45 49) further supports the
Examiner’s finding, as two differently sized signatures will not match
position even if the starting position is matched. Moreover, Omura
recognizes that a person’s handwritten signature normally exhibits some
variability—such as when “a number of characters are not certain like in the
case of authentication by a signature”—but teaches that authentication is still
possible via normalized, arbitrary-sized signatures, and additional, optional
timer checks. See Omura col. 59,11. 25—29. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have understood that a
handwritten signature matching the reference signature’s overall shape
would authenticate in Omura, despite the handwritten signature not exactly
matching all the reference signature’s coordinate points. Ans. 17—18; Final
Act. 11.
Additionally, Rytivaara discloses unlocking a touch screen by
touching large predetermined contact areas, where “[a] touch on a
predetermined contact area is correct when the touch hits any area of the
predetermined contact area.'” See Rytivaara 146 (emphasis added), 149,
Figs. 5 A, 5C. Thus, Rytivaara also suggests unlocking a device with a
“tactile pattern [that] matches the shape of the unlocking gesture but not the
position,” as claimed.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rytivaara and Omura. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claim 12. For the same reasons, we sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 13 and 15—18, which are not argued
separately. App. Br. 9.
8
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
Appellant does not provide separate arguments for the rejection of
dependent claim 14. Thus, for the same reasons as independent claim 12
from which claim 14 depends, we sustain the rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rytivaara, Omura, and Chaudhri.
In view of our decision that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 12—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rytivaara and
Omura, we do not reach the rejections of claims 12—18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rytivaara and Gourgey.
Claims 19—25
Independent claim 19 recites, inter alia, a touch-based authentication
method of a mobile device comprising “transforming the mobile device from
an initial state to an unlocked state if it is determined that the another tactile
pattern matches the shape of the unlocking gesture but not the orientation.'1'’
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues the combination of Rytivaara and Omura does not
teach or suggest authentication via a tactile pattern matching the shape of the
unlocking gesture but not the orientation. App. Br. 4. Appellant
acknowledges Omura normalizes a signature’s size, but asserts “[Omura] is
silent concerning matching the shape of the unlocking gesture but not the
orientation.” App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues
Omura’s authentication—comparing coordinates of handwritten signatures
on a semi-fixed display panel—“is necessarily orientation dependent,” as
“Omura nowhere indicates that an authorization signature may be entered
up-side-down or side-ways on the display panel.” App. Br. 6 (citing Omura
col. 57,11. 21-23, col. 58,11. 23-24, 37^19, col. 60,11. 2-3, Figs. 23-24).
9
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
We do not agree. Rather, for the same reasons as claim 12, we agree with
the Examiner that Omura teaches authentication based on whether “the
another tactile pattern matches the shape of the unlocking gesture but not the
orientation,” as recited in claim 19.
Appellant additionally argues Omura teaches away from
authentication with a tactile pattern that “matches the shape of the unlocking
gesture but not the orientation” because “Omura’s touch-screen mounting
system limits its orientation . . . [which] suggests signature entry only at a
fixed orientation.” Reply Br. 5 (citing Omura cols. 26—30, Figs. 23^40).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Omura does not expressly
discourage signature entry at various orientations on its touch-sensitive
board—which is rotatable. See Omura col. 28,11. 18—22 (describing “an
angle adjusting mechanism section for adjusting an angle of the board
section 601 (a display surface and a write-in surface of a display board) is
provided”). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general
preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. See In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rytivaara and Omura. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claim 19. For the same reasons, we sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 20 and 22—25, which are not argued
separately. App. Br. 7.
Appellant does not provide separate arguments for the rejection of
dependent claim 21. Thus, for the same reasons as independent claim 19,
10
Appeal 2016-003488
Application 13/212,211
from which claim 21 depends, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rytivaara, Omura, and Chaudhri.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,5,6, and 8—25 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11